[Mr. Speaker i n the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Canterbury City Council Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

Leeds City Council Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

Northern Bank Bill

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

St Austell Market Bill

Read a Second time, and  referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords](By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 February.

Oral Answers to Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Powers of Attorney

Tony Baldry: How many applications in relation to enduring powers of attorney have been lodged with the Office of the Public Guardian since 1 October 2007.

Bridget Prentice: From 1 October 2007 to 18 January 2008, the Office of the Public Guardian received 6,318 applications to register enduring powers of attorney and 2,746 applications to register the new lasting powers of attorney, which replaced enduring powers of attorney when the Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force on 1 October.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Sir Mark Potter, the president of the family division, states that since opening for business on 1 October 2007, the Office of the Public Guardian has been all but overwhelmed by the unexpectedly high level of business, particularly in relation to enduring powers of attorney. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the OPG has the resources it needs to carry out the tasks that Parliament set it in the 2005 Act, particularly in relation to enduring powers of attorney, which are very important for many people?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. These are people who are at their most vulnerable, so it is vital that we get the service right. It is true that the OPG received far more applications than it had initially expected and that there was a small backlog in some areas, but I have investigated thoroughly and I can assure him, and the rest of the House, that it has been rectified. For example, more than 85 per cent. of calls to the contact centre are being answered within the 60-second target. Things are moving in the right direction.

Electoral Systems

Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the Government's review of electoral systems.

Michael Wills: I made a written ministerial statement on 24 January, announcing the publication of the review of voting systems. Copies of the review have been placed in the Library.

Richard Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In responding to the review, Ministers have said that it is an important contribution to the debate about the strengths and weaknesses of different voting systems, and the options for electoral reform. As the review is essentially desk research, it raises the question of where that debate will take place. Is there not now a case for asking voters—engaging the public in the debate—what kinds of different electoral systems can best contribute to different forms of politics and what they want from their political system in this country?

Michael Wills: It was precisely for that reason—to inform the kind of debate that my hon. Friend wants—that we published the review. This is an important issue, and we look forward to hearing the results of that debate.

Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever changes may be made to the voting system—this paper is clearly an important one—it also matters how the system of voting works? Does he also agree that the changes that his Government have initiated in the past have not been an outstanding success, and that one of the things that dignified our democracy in the past was the absolute integrity and assurance of our voting system? Will he please put it back to what it was?

Michael Wills: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his question, because of course such matters are fundamentally important. However, I do not agree with the second part. We have always taken the integrity of the voting system seriously. The legislation that we have passed has had that absolutely at its heart, but we have a problem—as I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise—with the disengagement of significant parts of the electorate from the political system. All of us owe it to our electorate to do whatever we can to increase participation. That is what has driven our reforms, and it will continue to drive our approach, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the integrity of the system remains fundamental.

Denis MacShane: But did we not set up the Electoral Commission to consider these ideas? Since its creation, we have seen voting turnout decline, confidence in politicians fall, and the Council of Europe has criticised our postal voting. We give that outfit £27 million a year. Why?

Michael Wills: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution, although I am not sure that it is fair to suggest, as he seems to do, that all those phenomena are the fault of the Electoral Commission. We are reforming the commission. We want it to improve its performance and we are confident that it will do so.

Peter Tapsell: Has the Minister noted that Signor Prodi has recently pointed out that proportional representation has made it almost impossible to govern Italy?

Michael Wills: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an invaluable contribution to the debate.

Jim Devine: Will my hon. Friend take evidence from Scottish councillors who are now enjoying—if that is the correct word—the single transferable vote electoral system? It means that we have more than one councillor a ward, and as a consequence, instead of one councillor being directly accountable to his or her constituents and visiting the community council, two or three have to turn up at gala day committees and such like. That has a very detrimental effect on their health.

Michael Wills: That is another valuable contribution to the debate and I am delighted that the review of voting systems has already produced such an interesting collection of views.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not the case that this so-called review of electoral systems is actually little more than a cover for the Government's abject failure to address existing electoral issues, such as the need to counter rampant electoral malpractice, poor voter registration levels, hopeless electronic voting projects and the dire need for sensible party funding proposals?

Michael Wills: Up until this moment, we have heard an interesting collection of views on the review of voting systems. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not feel able to address the issue at point. The answer to his question is, in short, no.

Nigel Evans: I do not know what latitude the Minister has to look into the way in which European Union elections are operated. We have a problem with parliamentary elections for Westminster, but the turnout in European elections is much lower. Can he look into that so that we could perhaps return to the old system and, instead of the discredited proportional representation list system, we could have proper European constituencies, with one MEP representing one set of people?

Michael Wills: Of course we will look into that. The whole point of the review of voting systems is to invite contributions to the debate about something that is fundamentally important to the health of our democracy.

Parliamentary Candidates (Expenditure)

Tom Levitt: What steps he plans to take to limit spending by parliamentary candidates between elections.

Jack Straw: The issue of expenditure limits has, as my hon. Friend knows, recently been considered by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, by Sir Hayden Phillips's review and during inter-party talks. The Government were committed, under the Queen's Speech, to bring forward proposals on party finance and expenditure, and work on that is in hand.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend will know that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 removed the triggering of election expenses from electoral law. That has led to a situation in which tens of thousands of pounds are already being spent by some candidates in marginal seats as though an election had already been called. That is being done on the basis, presumably, that they hope that the candidate with the most money, rather than the best policies, will win the next election. Although the issue of triggering was not covered by the Hayden Phillips inquiry, will my right hon. Friend consider reinstating the 1983 legislation on the triggering of election expenses?

Jack Straw: It is a moot point whether the legislation or its subsequent interpretation has made it more difficult to enforce limits locally, but it is clear that a combination perhaps of the detailed drafting of the Act and its subsequent enforcement has had a consequence that no one on either side of each House ever intended—indeed, the opposite was the case, as the then Conservative spokesman in the Lords, the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish put on record in Committee in the other place at the time. All of us at the time believed on very good evidence that that part of what became the 2000 Act was faithfully implementing Lord Neill's conclusions—shared by all the parties, as he said, who gave evidence to his Committee—not just to maintain the existing controls, but in his words, to buttress them.

David Heath: Does not the Lord Chancellor except that, after the events of the past few weeks, we need not only rules that work, but rules that everyone stick to? On that basis, will he now bring forward as a matter of urgency the proposals set out by Sir Hayden Phillips—not just the bits that suit any one party, but the whole package—fundamentally to reform the system of party funding before irreparable harm is done to our democratic systems?

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman in particular knows, the all-party talks were operating on a good consensual basis until earlier in the summer last year, and I am very reluctant to proceed without a consensus, because the system of party funding should not advantage or disadvantage in a partisan way one party or another. He will also know that the recommendations in the report of Sir Hayden Phillips were "welcomed"—that was the phrase used—by the then Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and it is a matter of concern to us that the Conservative Opposition have moved far away from what was proposed. But it is also clear that there was, and I believe there remains, a complete consensus. Anyone who reads the record going back to the recommendations of Neill, back into the 1980s, and back to the debates on the 1999 draft Bill, which became the 2000 Act, will see that everyone in every part of both Houses believed—indeed, the Conservative Opposition in the other place proposed an amendment to clarify the law to make this clear, although at the time Ministers thought that was not needed—that the 1983 controls would continue to operate and be completed by the national controls that Neill proposed.

Martin Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for what I took to be a clear statement of an intention to close the loophole, whether by legislation or by guidelines. If legislation is used, what is the earliest date by which he would hope to close that loophole, given the clear statement in an article in  The Times earlier this month that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is already pouring money into constituencies?

Jack Straw: I do not know which deputy chairman my hon. Friend is talking about, but if it is the one that I have in mind, that person is on record, as he was in the other place in a speech that he made in November 2006, saying that there should be no controls whatever on expenditure by parties.
	As for any proposals, as the Queen's Speech said, we are committed to introducing proposals in respect of party finance and expenditure. The Government have yet to make the final decisions, but they will be made shortly.

Alan Beith: Does the Lord Chancellor recall that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs produced its unanimous report on the basis that both spending between elections and trade union funding for the Labour party needed to be addressed? It was therefore a balanced package. If he were to proceed on those lines, he could hardly be accused of being partisan for doing so.

Jack Straw: I do indeed recall that, and the proposals in Hayden Phillips's report cause difficulties, albeit not symmetrically, certainly for both the main parties and to some extent for the Liberal Democrat party as well, but those proposals were, and are, a package—not some kind of à la carte menu—and they need to be proceeded with on that basis. That is my profound concern. Meanwhile, as I say, I have now looked with great care at something that was not directly considered—I am not seeking to make any point—either by Hayden Phillips or, indeed, in the Select Committee report, which I have not only read, but have with me today, for the purposes of greater accuracy. It is absolutely clear, as I have remembered and is now confirmed, that Neill wanted to build on the 1983 controls and absolutely no one on either side of the House thought otherwise, so much so, as I have said, that the late John Mackay—Lord Mackay, who was the Conservative spokesman in the other place and who was well known in this House—moved amendments to address concerns about local controls being dissolved. He was reassured—as it turned out, in error, but in good faith—by Ministers that those controls would not be undermined in any way.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Lord Chancellor accept that it will not be easy to impose spending caps of the type advocated, and that fraud and avoidance will be relatively easy? Given that, will he work hard to bring forward a package of proposals supported throughout the House that recognises the historical link between trade unions and the Labour party?

Jack Straw: The truth is that controls of any kind can be evaded, which is a criminal offence, or avoided, which may be just within the law but is not within the spirit of the law. It is incumbent on all parties to ensure that we do not go down the same route that some taxpayers—one fully understands why—go down. It is equally important, as the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs pointed out, that account is taken of the different parties' different circumstances. That used to be the Conservatives' approach, but I regret to say that they have abandoned it.
	It also needs to be put on record yet again that the Conservative party made major changes and tightened controls on trade unions' political funds throughout the 1980s. Although we did not like those changes, we came to accept them in the mid-1990s. When Neill reported in 1998, he not only said that he had no proposals to change them but quoted the Conservative party's official evidence to him:
	"The question of trade union funding of parties is not a matter of direct concern to the Conservative Party. We recognise the historic ties that bind the trade union movement with the Labour Party...The Conservative Party does not believe that it is illegitimate for the trade union movement to provide support for political parties."
	Moreover—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say gently to the Secretary of State that I have an Order Paper to get through.

Data Protection

John Barrett: What consideration his Department has given to bringing forward proposals to strengthen data protection.

Michael Wills: The Ministry of Justice is considering how to take forward proposals to enable the Information Commissioner to inspect all public sector organisations without prior consent, the introduction of new funding arrangements for his office and new penalties under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the most serious breaches of data protection principles. We will be launching a consultation on those issues soon, and will take whatever action is necessary as a result of the reviews being carried out by Sir Gus O'Donnell, Kieran Poynter, Dr. Mark Walport and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner.

John Barrett: I thank the Minister for that answer, but given that in the past eight years about five laptops have disappeared every month from a single Department, the Ministry of Defence, does he agree that the time is now right to consider the Liberal Democrat proposals to make reckless handling of data a criminal offence—proposals that the Government dismissed out of hand at the time?

Michael Wills: As I said, we are looking at how to take measures forward, and considering new legislation will be part of that. We are in active discussion with the Information Commissioner about how best to do so.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that many schemes for shared services are going forward throughout Whitehall. Given that, in the case of the Department for Transport, that would mean incorporating very large amounts of data, will he bear in mind that that is not always the best way to organise one's affairs?

Michael Wills: The hon. Lady is right to be cautious—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Actually, I am a Friend.

Michael Wills: Sorry—my hon. Friend. I am extremely grateful to her for reminding me of that fact. She will recognise that there are huge benefits in data sharing to citizens and everyone who uses public services, but of course we must be cautious about everybody's right to privacy and the security of data. That is precisely why we asked Dr. Mark Walport and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, to conduct a review. They will report within the next few months.

Paul Beresford: Following on from the previous question, does the Minister agree that the greater the centralisation of data and the more personal data collected, the more valuable they are to criminals and terrorists? Is he looking to the increase that one would expect in hacking and the possibility—it has already happened with records in this country—of huge bribes being paid? Once the data are gone, the horse has bolted from the stable.

Michael Wills: As I have just said, there are clearly important issues of principle that predate the recent and very regrettable incidents that have taken place. There is no question but that there is a serious problem with the way that data are kept in both the private and the public sector. That is not specific to the public sector, and it is to do with the changing way that records are kept electronically, which has changed dramatically in the past 10 to 15 years. Both the private and the public sector must change the way that they do business in order to keep up with that. That is precisely what we are doing and why we have had the reviews. To suggest, however, that there is no case for keeping any data at all ever is simply incredible.

Eleanor Laing: I am pleased to hear what the Minister said about some of the things that the Government are thinking of doing, now that they have been proved to be so incompetent in the handling of secure data, but I wonder why the Minister is still dithering. There is a Bill in the House of Lords—the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill—into which amendments could be inserted that would deal with the matter by creating an offence of recklessly mishandling data. The Minister could do that right now, instead of holding more reviews and thinking about it. I am delighted that he said that the Information Commissioner is to have greater powers. I hope that means that the Information Commissioner will be able to undertake spot checks of Government Departments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be asking a supplementary question, not making a speech. Perhaps the Minister can reply.

Michael Wills: Speaking personally, I am always happy to listen to the hon. Lady for as long as she wants to talk. However, may I point out to her that we are already introducing legislation to deal with the offence of knowingly and recklessly misusing data. I remind her that it was this Government who brought in the Data Protection Act 1998 and who have continued to make sure that it is updated and meeting the needs of the circumstances. I remind her that her party showed so little interest in the matter that it was not mentioned in their 2001 manifesto or in their 2005 manifesto. I am delighted that the Conservatives are now taking an interest in it and I hope she will support the measures that we are introducing to deal with those issues.

Courts Staff (Pay)

Eric Illsley: What progress has been made on the introduction of regional pay rates for courts staff; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: Five regional pay ranges were implemented for staff joining Her Majesty's Courts Service with effect from 1 August 2007. Existing staff have been given the option of taking up a four-year pay deal, including the five regional pay ranges, or remaining on existing terms and conditions. We expect 95 per cent. of staff to opt for the new arrangement.

Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of disappointment among court staff at the introduction of a system of pay that is divisive and unfair—an old-fashioned and discredited form of regional pay. Let me give a couple of examples to show why the system is unfair. Staff in Sheffield are paid at a different rate from those in Leeds, and staff in both cities are paid at different rates from the pay in Liverpool and Manchester. Another example is that court staff at Mold Crown court are paid at an enhanced rate of pay simply because that is the headquarters of the regional manager.

Maria Eagle: The last point that my hon. Friend made is not an accurate reflection of the differences between Mold and Wrexham. Regional pay is a reality which Her Majesty's Courts Service is reacting to, not creating. Ninety per cent. of staff have opted into the deal that is set out in the new arrangements. The aim is to create a single set of conditions to replace more than 50 existing schemes that Her Majesty's Courts Service inherited when it came into being, in order to address three issues—recruitment and retention, low pay, and rewarding good performance. One in four staff, a majority in the lowest grades, will see a 20 per cent. increase in their pay over the next four years. That is a good thing, and the staff are voting with their feet and opting in.

Elfyn Llwyd: Could the Minister tell the House why differential pay rates based on gender are, rightly, unlawful and absolutely wrong, but differential pay rates based on geography seem to be a good idea?

Maria Eagle: The Courts Service is reacting to regional pay, not creating it. Such pay is based on local labour markets and jobs available in the relevant area; there is no discrimination based on anything other than the local realities. Recruitment, retention and being able to do the job that the Courts Service is there to do are the basis of the arrangements. So far, 90 per cent. of staff have opted into them.

Julie Morgan: Will my hon. Friend have another look to see whether it is possible to withdraw the lowest regional pay range? I do not know whether she is aware that—in Wales, certainly—the majority of court workers affected are women. The wages of people in Wales are already lower than those in the rest of the UK, and that sort of proposal makes it much more difficult to close the prosperity gap.

Maria Eagle: I am always happy to look at things when Members suggest that I do so, and I will do so. However, I reiterate that 90 per cent. of staff have already opted into the arrangements. Built into those arrangements is an intention over the next four years to increase the lowest pay rates significantly over other pay rates. We will do that. The arrangements will improve pay for those on the lowest bands more than for those at higher levels.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister will know that the company Serco provides staff for Crown courts and magistrates courts across the London area. Those staff bring prisoners to court and then up from the cells into the dock. Is the Minister aware that courts in London are in some chaos at the moment because Serco appears to be dreadfully understaffed, not having enough people to do the job properly? Is that because the company is not efficient enough, or are the Government simply not paying the proper rate to get a proper job done?

Maria Eagle: The arrangements are contracted. Serco has standards to meet; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that those standards are not being met, I shall be happy to look into specific instances that have been brought to his attention. However, the arrangements are made on the basis of a contract and as far as I am aware, they are working well.

Freedom of Information Act

Norman Baker: What plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Jack Straw: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has now been in force for three years and appears to be working well, although we keep it under continuous review. We are not proceeding with amendments to the fees regulation. However, we are consulting on whether to extend FOI coverage to a range of organisations that are in the private sector, but carry out public functions. An independent review of the 30-year rule is under way and due to report this summer.

Norman Baker: I welcome that response, and agree with the direction of travel that the Secretary of State is taking. Does he agree that it is a nonsense that the British Potato Council is covered by the 2000 Act but private water companies, which provide an essential and monopolistic service, are not? Furthermore, the British Railways Board, which simply exists in a cosy corner somewhere, is covered, but Network Rail is not. Will he sort that out?

Jack Straw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point and thank him for his earlier remarks. As the boundary between the public and private sectors for the delivery of what are essentially public services has moved, so we believe that the arrangements should move as well. That is why we are consulting on the matter.

Gregory Campbell: Would the Secretary of State consider amendments to the 2000 Act that would protect the public's right to the information but guard against repeated, petty and often exorbitant requests that are made frequently and do nothing to add to freedom of information?

Jack Straw: There is already a large array of safeguards in the Act and within the practice of the Information Commissioner. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of concern to him, I am ready to follow them up, including with the commissioner.

Redditch Prison

Julie Kirkbride: What discussions he has had over his merging of Her Majesty's Prisons Blakenhurst, Hewell Grange and Brockhill as HMP Redditch.

David Hanson: The Prison Service discussed the merger internally, with staff associations and trade unions, and consulted a number of agencies, including Worcestershire county council, over the change of name to HMP Redditch. Following representations, I have agreed to an extended consultation on the name of the site; the deadline for submissions is 1 March.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As he will be aware, the three prisons that are to be called HMP Redditch reside in the Bromsgrove local authority area and the Bromsgrove parliamentary constituency. Could he be clearer about whether he consulted his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his sister Department, on the decision to call the prison HMP Redditch, which has been controversial in the neighbouring seat?

David Hanson: As I said, the consultations took place with people who work in the prison, the local council—Worcestershire county council—and a number of other agencies. Following representations from Redditch borough council, Bromsgrove borough council, the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), I have decided to allow for a further period of consultation on the name of the proposed cluster of prisons. I think that that is fair, and I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome it, examine it in detail and give us her response before 1 March.

Edward Garnier: Reading today's written statement from the Secretary of State, it seems that it is not just these three prisons that are being merged. Whatever the merits of the Redditch decision, will the Minister specify three steps that he has taken since 1 January that will expeditiously improve public safety, cut reoffending, reduce prison overcrowding and deal with the public perception that the only thing that we hear from within the Ministry of Justice is the scraping of deckchairs around the decks of the Titanic?

David Hanson: The hon. and learned Gentleman does himself a disservice. He knows that we are putting the greatest resources into new prison places in the history of Government, that we will put in place 16,000 extra prison places between now and 2011-12, and that we are securing a greater reduction in reoffending than ever there was under the Conservative Government. On the question of HMP Redditch, or whatever we finally agree to call it following the consultation, I would say to him that the clustering will save £650,000 in the next financial year and £860,000 in the financial year after that. As regards efficiencies, we are acting on them while he is simply talking about them.

Private Sector Prisons

David Taylor: What recent representations he has received on the performance of prisons run by private sector organisations.

David Hanson: Since 9 May 2007, I have received a number of submissions in relation to the performance of prisons run by private sector organisations. I am also provided with regular updates on the performance of private prisons through the independent monitoring board reports and the National Offender Management Service quarterly reports.

David Taylor: Private prisons have been an utter disaster, with abject assessments on the key requirements of security, maintaining order and reducing reoffending. No wonder 90 per cent. of them languish in the lowest poor performance quartile of the 132 jails in England and Wales: see early-day motion 752. Why is this track record of private contractors allowed to continue, with the love affair with the profit motive producing environments that the chief inspector of prisons, no less, describes as
	"unsafe and unstable for both prisoners and staff"?

David Hanson: I know that my hon. Friend has some reservations, dare I say it, with regard to the private prison sector, but I would say to him that direct comparisons between public and private sector establishments on the scorecard are not appropriate and that private prisons are providing a valuable function in the custodial estate. He will know that we are looking at a new assessment framework to see how we can drive up standards in both the public sector and the private sector. I hope that he will share the Government's aspiration to ensure that we undertake proper assessment and tackle underperformance where it exists.

Nicholas Winterton: What is the quality of the provision made in private prisons for education, training, skills and rehabilitation so that more people come out of prison able to enter a proper responsible life outside prison? It is important that those facilities be provided. What is the level and quality of that provision in our private prisons?

David Hanson: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in this matter, which is important because the quality of education, training and employment can affect the prospects for limiting reoffending when people leave prison. I recently visited Parc prison, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), and other private prisons, where significantly good work is going on to match employers with offenders, to look at investment in training, to ensure that people are prepared for life outside prison, and to help to reduce reoffending. There will always be variations in the level of provision and variations between some private prisons and some public prisons. The job of Government is to drive up quality throughout the public and private sectors to achieve the end that the hon. Gentleman shares with us.

Northumbria Probation Service

David Anderson: What assessment he has made of the likely effect of budget changes on services provided by Northumbria probation service.

David Hanson: Northumbria's probation budget will increase by more than 2 per cent. in 2008-09. The regional offender manager and probation staff are examining the service levels based on that increase.

David Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the probation service has said that it expects a 5.31 per cent. deficit by March 2011? That could impact on the service offered to offenders, and lead to the loss of 24 posts. It could mean that 24 trainee probation officers are not put in post, which would be a waste of £800,000 of public money. There are also threats to employees' terms and conditions. Is that what the Minister meant when he met me last year to say that things were going to get better?

David Hanson: I say to my hon. Friend—I hope that he will accept this—that this year Northumbria's budget will increase from more than £25.484 million to more than £25.995 million, which is an increase of more than 2 per cent. Northumbria has been able to recruit 24 trainee probation officers. The national staffing levels in the probation service have risen by more than 49 per cent. from more than 13,000 to more than 20,000 in the past 10 years of Labour Government. The number of staff in post in Northumbria stands at 644, and the regional offender manager and the probation service will try to live within the 2 per cent. increase for next year. I met my hon. Friend in Northumbria during the summer, and I am happy to meet him again to discuss the issues should he so wish.

Peers (Disqualification)

Gordon Prentice: If he will bring forward proposals to disqualify from membership of the House of Lords those peers who are not UK residents for tax purposes.

Bridget Prentice: The Government are developing proposals on disqualification criteria as part of their comprehensive package on Lords reform. A cross-party group is currently considering that and other matters, and its views will be reflected in a White Paper on Lords reform to be published in due course.

Gordon Prentice: I hear what my friend says, but is it not an absolute disgrace and a scandal that people such as Lord Laidlaw, a Conservative peer and donor who is a tax exile in Monaco, are serving in this Parliament? For all I know, there may well be others. Is this not a matter of urgency? I appreciate what my friend said about the forthcoming White Paper on Lords reform, but the issue has to be tackled. People outside this place would be incredulous that people who do not pay our taxes are making our laws.

Bridget Prentice: I may not speak with the same passion as my hon. Friend on this subject, but I can tell him that the Government believe that Members of the House of Lords should pay tax in the United Kingdom. As I told him when he introduced his private Member's Bill on Friday, we are prepared to endorse the principles behind it. If amendments are tabled in Committee to deal with this matter, we will be more than prepared to consider them.

Female Convicts

Annette Brooke: What recent consideration he has given to changing the types of establishment in which female convicts are detained.

Maria Eagle: The Government's response to the Corston report makes a commitment to consider the future of the women's custodial estate. A project has been set up to examine Baroness Corston's recommendation that the women's estate should be replaced with smaller, geographically dispersed custodial units. I hope that that project will report to Ministers in April.

Annette Brooke: Can the Minister give some indication of the time scale? The Corston review was published about nine months ago, and can be contrasted with the Carter review, which recommended the expansion of male prisons. It seems as if all the available money is being targeted at the men, while women are being left in conditions that are totally unsuitable, given that 70 per cent. of female prisoners have mental health conditions.

Maria Eagle: I do not accept that—and the figures that I have suggest that 80 per cent. of female prisoners, rather than 70 per cent., have diagnosable mental ill health. The hon. Lady is not right to suggest that the approaches are separate. There is no doubt that the work that we are doing through the project to which I referred, which will establish more detail about how the reconfiguration of the women's estate would work, as well as how smaller units would work and the extent to which they would be appropriate, will inform our estate strategy. Lord Carter referred in his report to the need to ensure that investment under that programme is made in such a way that it can assist in ensuring that women are not disadvantaged in the custodial system. The hon. Lady has made it clear that the needs of women are often different, and I agree with her. That is why I am the ministerial champion whose role is to ensure that we implement in a sensible way the 40 of the 43 recommendations in Baroness Corston's report that we have accepted. These approaches can go hand in hand.

Rape Victims

Adrian Bailey: What steps he is taking to ensure that victims of rape are adequately supported and protected by the criminal justice system.

Maria Eagle: We are extending the network of sexual assault referral centres, which are piloting the use of independent sexual advisers to provide advocacy and support for victims, and providing funding for voluntary organisations to support victims of sexual violence. We have also introduced specialist police officers and prosecutors who can provide support to victims and help to make sure that rape is properly prosecuted.

Adrian Bailey: During the past 10 years, the number of reported rapes has more than doubled, but the number of prosecutions has remained obstinately low at under 6 per cent. One of the main reasons for that is the failure of many women to pursue prosecutions. Will the Minister outline a little further what is being done to encourage and support women to do that?

Maria Eagle: I think that the figure that my hon. Friend mentioned refers to the conviction rate, rather than the prosecution rate. He is correct, however, that attrition—complainants withdrawing their complaints—is one of the main reasons why those conviction rates are still unacceptably low. The cross-government action plan on sexual violence and abuse focuses on increasing the level of support that the criminal justice system gives to victims to enable them to take their complaints forward, to ensure that we get more convictions. The sexual referral centres deal with that process. There were only five of them in 2001, and there should be at least 36 by the end of this financial year. The independent sexual violence advisers, who currently work in 38 areas, can give support and advocacy to ensure that complainants proceed through what is often a difficult process to make sure that there are convictions. For the convictions that do occur, the average length of sentences has increased. In 1984 the average length was just under two years, but by 2005 it had increased to just under seven years. It is worth ensuring that we send a signal, locally and nationally, that sexual assault and violence will not be tolerated in our society.

Topical Questions

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities.

Jack Straw: I have today issued a written ministerial statement on a new structure for the Ministry of Justice. The key changes will take place in the National Offender Management Service—NOMS—where Her Majesty's Prison Service and the probation system will be brought together under a streamlined headquarters and regional structure to improve the focus on front-line delivery in prisons and probation, and to improve efficiency.

David Evennett: Last year, almost 61,000 prisoners were held in police cells throughout the country at a cost of almost £460 a night. Lord Carter's review recommends the extension of Operation Safeguard to help to relieve prison overcrowding. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the £28 million black hole will not be extended, that public money will not continue to be wasted, and that police officers will be able to police rather than becoming part-time prison officers?

Jack Straw: On the latter point, that practice is paid for out of overtime, which is one of the reasons for the high cost, so there is no evidence that it is detracting from the availability of officers on the ground. The hon. Gentleman will know that crime has decreased consistently in his constituency. In the Metropolitan police area alone, an additional 3,500 officers have begun work during the past 10 years. As for police cells, we are working hard to ensure that there is sufficient supply to cope with demand so that we do not have to use them. Although I understand the concern, the last people entitled to complain about the situation are members of the Conservative party, which consistently used police cells to a much greater extent than we have ever done, or are likely to do. Under the Conservatives, this practice peaked with 3,500 cells being used in one particular month.

John Baron: Believing that prison sentencing should reflect the crime committed and not prison capacity, my constituents do not want incompetence from this Government when they plan prison expansion. In his statement to the House on the Carter prison review, the Secretary of State said that it would cost £1.2 billion to provide an additional 10,500 places by 2014. Why, then, when questioned by the Justice Committee, did he say that the cost would be nearly double that?

Jack Straw: I have explained in some detail to the Select Committee, and, indeed, in a further letter to the Chair of the Committee, that the £1.2 billion related to the current comprehensive spending review period—I had thought that that was obvious to anybody—with some additional funding to cover the purchase of the land for the so-called titan prisons. No Government have ever been able to give precise estimates of expenditure for the following spending period. That is why the total cost, including some element for capital receipts—although that is open to a wide margin of error—is estimated to be £2.3 billion.

Ian Lucas: On the day when my right hon. Friend has made a further announcement about the creation of a regional structure in England, does he agree that it is high time to make progress on regional Select Committees in England, to hold regional Ministers and bodies to account?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend will realise, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I know that extensive consultation is taking place on it. Let me make it clear that the changes in the structure that I have announced today will apply to the operation of the probation service and the Prison Service in Wales, too, for which I am also responsible. We propose that there should be a single regional manager for both prisons and probation in Wales.

Tom Brake: In the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), Sutton magistrates court
	"serves the community of Sutton...and it does so to a high standard."—[  Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 277WH.]
	With the clustering of courts now proceeding, and Sutton magistrates court losing staff to Croydon, making it more difficult to access files and pushing up overhead costs, will the Secretary of State reconfirm that there is no planned closure of the court?

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, closure was considered under a proposal made in 2002. A final decision was made by my then hon. Friend Christopher Leslie, who was a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and announced at the beginning of 2006. I am not aware of any plans for closure now. If there are any, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is made fully aware of them quickly.

Nick Herbert: The Justice Secretary says that today's reorganisation of his Department will provide a sharper focus on reducing reoffending. Yet he also plans to bar voluntary groups from working with prisoners on Friday evenings. Is locking prisoners in overcrowded cells from Friday afternoons to Monday mornings what the Government mean by end-to-end offender management?

Jack Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will decide to welcome the changes, which build on those that have been in train for the past 10 years. They have brought prisons and probation closer together and ensured that we have a much more effective Prison Service. The issue is whether we are ensuring, through the Prison Service and the probation service, that as well as suffering proper punishment, more offenders are trained so that they do not reoffend when they leave prison. The record on that is clear. The changes to the week are the result of financial constraints, but the question for Conservative Members is whether they would increase spending on prisons, as well as the rest of public spending. [Hon. Members: "You're in government."] We are in government, but they claim to be an alternative Government, and they need to put up or be quiet on the matter.

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that he is locking up prisoners over weekends to cut spending. How can he justify wasting more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money on the National Offender Management Service—an organisation that he has, after only three years of its existence, effectively scrapped in all but name?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman had good notice of my statement, but he obviously has not read it. The claim that we are scrapping NOMS is the opposite of the truth. I know that he was hoping for that, and I am sorry to disappoint him. The money invested in NOMS has worked well to ensure that reoffending is decreasing. There is a much greater focus on education, leading to a dramatic increase in training prisoners, and drug rehabilitation funding has increased tenfold. For the first time since the war, a Government have presided over not an increase in crime but a major reduction in crime throughout the country.

Andrew MacKinlay: Can we have a review of the law relating to wills? How is it that all our wills will be disclosed and subject to public scrutiny, but those of the royal family are not? By what logic or fairness are the wills of the royal family covered up? What are the limits to the royal family? Presumably we are all ultimately members of the royal family, but I would like to know where the boundaries lie. There might be an exception for the Head of State, but not for all the others. It is time the system was modernised and democratised, and I expect this Labour Government to do something radical for a change. How about it?

Bridget Prentice: I certainly am not a member of the royal family—indeed, under the current law I doubt whether I would ever be allowed to be one. And I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend further, by saying that there is a long-standing convention that allows the president of the family division to decide whether the wills of the royal family should be open for inspection. My hon. Friend may wish to take that up with the president of the family division, because unfortunately, we have no plans to change the law in that respect.

Bill Wiggin: On 16 January the Prime Minister said that the Bail Act 1976 was to be reviewed and that
	"if any changes in the law are necessary, we will make them."—[ Official Report, 16 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 925.]
	However, in his speech to the Parole Board earlier this month, the Secretary of State said that there
	"must be independent judicial decisions based on the law as it is".
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that a review is taking place, and say whether there are any plans to change the law?

Jack Straw: There is no inconsistency at all between what I said and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The point that I was making to the Parole Board, which I shall repeat now, is that judicial decision makers, whether they be magistrates or judges, have an extraordinarily difficult job to do in predicting the future behaviour of offenders, on the best evidence available and in the context of a general presumption, from which I hope the Opposition do not resile, that people are innocent until they are found guilty. The Opposition may sometimes forget that, but it is rather fundamental to the operation of our law. What I am doing is looking in a measured way at whether we should take further steps to strengthen the law in that respect, particularly in the light of the Weddell case, and I am happy to take representations from all parts of the House on that.

Andrew Rosindell: Can the Secretary of State for Justice explain why a patient in an NHS hospital has only £3 a day spent on their food, yet a criminal locked up in a police cell has £12 a day spent on food? Will the Secretary of State enlighten us as to why the figure is four times more for a criminal in a cell?

Jack Straw: As ever, the hon. Gentleman, who comes from the same great county as I do, asks an important question. The issue is an interesting one, and I shall revert to him and the House on the matter.

Diane Abbott: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that financial constraints will not mean a cut in education in prisons? Education plays a key role in ensuring that former prisoners do not reoffend.

David Hanson: I shall certainly try to give my hon. Friend that assurance, because education is crucial in both developing the skill levels of individuals in prison and preparing them for life outside prison. She will know that there are many good education schemes in prisons in London, which are designed to link prisoners with employers outside and to try to ensure that they have proper employment opportunities at the end, because employment is key to reducing reoffending.

John Barrett: Will the Secretary of State give an indication of the time scale in which he hopes to bring forward future developments in moving towards a fully elected House of Lords?

Jack Straw: All-party talks are currently taking place, which I am pleased to say are proceeding pretty well, and a White Paper reflecting them will be published, I very much hope, before the summer.

Charles Hendry: The Lord Chancellor may recall that when he was Leader of the House, I raised with him the issue of suicide websites and was grateful for the sympathetic response that he gave. I raised the issue following the suicide of a teenage constituent, where there was evidence that he had been influenced in taking his own life by so-called suicide websites, which actively encourage people to commit suicide. Following the terrible news about a dozen young people in Wales who had taken their own lives, where there may have been a link through the internet, it is encouraging to know that the Government are looking to take action. Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what is proposed, and when we might expect such websites to be banned?

Jack Straw: I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this terrible issue. Our hearts go out to the families of the children who have committed suicide in these circumstances. We are grateful to have his support, and we are actively looking at what we can do to control those websites. There are inherent difficulties, because many of them are based overseas, but we want to take action as quickly as we can. I have just been passed a note to say that the Law Commission, which has also been looking into the issue, has made recommendations that the Government are considering.

David Taylor: In the light of the Prison Governors Association's report, which excoriates the performance of private firms involved in the management of prisons, will the Minister encourage the involvement of in-house teams to run the three titan super-prisons planned for the years to come?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend will know that we are examining in detail how to progress the concept and principles of titan prisons. He will also know that we are expecting shortly to produce a consultation paper outlining a number of issues, including location, management and the potential competition for the sites, either in the public or in the private sector. I hope to be able to make announcements, with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, on these matters shortly.

Business Statement

Harriet Harman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement. The business for Thursday 31 January will now be:
	Motion to approve the Fourth Report of the Committee of Standards and Privileges, Session 2007-08, on the conduct of Mr. Derek Conway (HC 280), followed by a topical debate on the Holocaust memorial day, followed by the remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making this short statement about the altered business on Thursday. I note that we did not have a topical debate last week, when we had a debate on Members' pay. This week, this extra debate has been inserted, and it is not time-limited, as I understand it. Will the right hon. Lady set out her policy on when topical debates will and will not take place?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady will be aware that topical debates take place in Government time. I made the decision last week to give the House as much time as possible to discuss the important questions raised by the Senior Salaries Review Body report on Members' pay and allowances. I made the decision on that day. We made the decision on the business for this Thursday last week. The decision that the topic for the debate would be the Holocaust memorial day was made first thing on Monday. Thereafter, we received the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and that will be the first order of business on Thursday. It will come before the topical debate, and we hope that the House will have ample opportunity to debate the Committee's report. When that debate ends, we will move on to the topical debate and then to the National Insurance Contributions Bill. We hope that the House will have the opportunity to do justice to all those issues.

Simon Hughes: We welcome the statement, and we think that the Leader of the House is right to have the Committee on Standards and Privileges business on Thursday, when it can be debated without appearing to conflict with the matters that we have already determined should have priority today and tomorrow. I should, however, like to follow the question raised by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) by requesting that, in future, the assumption should be that there will be a topical debate unless there is agreement across the House that that should be changed.

Harriet Harman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that topical debates take place in Government time, and that we will decide how to allocate that time. As he knows, the topical debate procedure is still in its early stages, and we shall review it in due course to see how it is working. This Thursday, the topical debate will take place after the House has had an opportunity to discuss the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of clarification, will the Leader of the House explain whether the moment of interruption will be later than normal on Thursday because of the extra business that the Government and the House feel it is appropriate to deal with on that day? It is important that the amount of time available for debate in this House should not be limited. The national insurance contributions legislation is important, so will the moment of interruption be later to take account of the time spent on the earlier business?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be four items of business, and the moment of interruption will be at the normal time. Obviously, depending on how the debates proceed during Thursday, and through discussions with the usual channels, we will try to ensure that the right time is available for each of the debates. We have done what people expect to be done in these circumstances: if a report about a Member is issued, the House must have an opportunity to debate and take any appropriate decision about it as early as possible. We did not want to scrap either the topical debate or consideration of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which had already been tabled as the business for the day. We hope that we will have the opportunity fully to debate all those issues; otherwise, we shall just have to keep an eye on things as they proceed. There should be enough time to debate all those matters.

Employment Retention

John Robertson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.
	This is the third time in the last few years that I have raised this subject in a ten-minute Bill and I can say that there has been firm consensus across the House that support should be provided to ensure that someone who develops an impairment or becomes disabled can remain in work. The Government have acknowledged that if they are to meet their target for an 80 per cent. employment rate and the requirements of public service agreement 8, they cannot ignore this issue. 2008 sees the latest strand with the Department for Work and Pensions employability campaign.
	Yesterday, four days into the job, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined reform of the welfare system to move more people from benefits into employment. Today, three attempts into my campaign—and, I hesitate to say, having seen off two Secretaries of State—I find myself once again making the point that we need to focus on retention in order to prevent people from falling into the welfare system in the first place.
	The widespread support I have always received for these Bills is testament to the fact that the matter is not confined to the margins of society. Every quarter, about 600,000 people become sick or develop an impairment as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and within one year 13 per cent.—78,000 people—have left work. Out of those, about 25,000 people permanently leave employment each year due to illness or disability, never to return. That works out at more than a quarter of a million people since the Government came to power in 1997. That more than cancels out the creditable achievement of the Department for Work and Pensions in helping 200,000 disabled people into work over the last decade. As a result of this and other barriers, a disabled person is nearly five times more likely to be out of work and claiming benefits than a non-disabled person, and crucially, we know that once out of work, they are far less likely to return to employment.
	Behind those statistics lie people's lives—lives that often become suddenly unrecognisable as they have to come to terms simultaneously with a permanent life-changing impairment while facing the prospect of losing their employment, their source of income and in some cases even their home.
	Last week, I listened to a speech from an inspirational man, Roger Lewis, and I think that his story says more about this Bill than my contribution ever could. Just under four years ago, his sight deteriorated to a point where he felt unable to work either effectively or safely without support through workplace adjustments or special equipment. Roger's employer, a local government social services department, suggested that he go to the doctor and be signed off sick. Following his refusal to do so on the grounds that he was not unwell, he was sent home on full pay and told not to return.
	Roger did not hear from his employers again until 12 months later, when they began a redeployment process to find him another position. Their only assistance was to provide him with a magnifying glass. A year later Roger, an employee for 20 years, had been given his notice and was left waiting by the phone, 10 minutes from redundancy. The call to prevent it came from his union only after the threat of a hearing at an employment tribunal forced his employers finally to change their approach. Subsequently, he was given three months away from work at one of the specialist colleges of the Royal National Institute of Blind People to train in using specialised computer software for visually impaired people. Only now has he been given the necessary support and equipment to enable him to do a job that he has always been capable of doing.
	That process, which would have—and has—broken many others, was described by Roger as
	"4 years of distress, depression, chaos and pressure, to demonstrate that despite being blind, I was still capable of doing my job."
	His is by no means an isolated experience. The questions that must be asked are: why does this have to happen, and why do we let it happen?
	Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of a disabled employee to ensure equality in his or her treatment with that of a non-disabled employee. That may involve providing a period of leave for treatment and rehabilitation, and to enable the employee to learn new skills in order to return to work. The non-binding code of practice illustrates the way in which the law is intended to operate when that provision kicks in. It envisages two employees, both of whom are out of work for six months. One, who is absent owing to a broken leg, returns to work once it heals, but the other, absent owing to a long-term disability, is dismissed. In that scenario, the employer would have breached his or her duty to the disabled employee.
	The Government's approach to the high unemployment rate among disabled people has been to increase awareness of the current law among employers. We welcome the employability campaign, but it misses a number of fundamental issues relating to the support that is needed to keep someone in work. Although the Disability Discrimination Act provisions are born from the principle and the arguments for employment retention, they remain inadequate when it comes to delivering it in practice.
	As there is no prescribed system of assessment to determine entitlement to interventions, including a period of rehabilitation leave, there is considerable uncertainty for both employers and employees, accentuated by the number and the broad nature of the conditions attached to such interventions. As a consequence, employment retention policies are rarely granted. They are more often the grounds for legal dispute at a tribunal that takes place too late, when someone has already lost his job, or subjects that person to a tortuous process in order for him to keep it. Furthermore, the lack of a system of assessment means that the Disability Discrimination Act places the onus on the two parties to resolve the situation.
	The importance of employment retention for a disabled person, for whom it is considerably more difficult to find work, is such that it is a free-standing justification per se. The Social Market Foundation estimates that improving the employability of disabled people would be worth £13 billion to the economy, and analysis by Lloyds TSB has shown that the financial benefit of retaining a typical manager who becomes disabled, weighed against the costs of making him redundant and hiring a new member of staff, amounts to £9,000.
	It is important to note that the current law does not actually secure equality of treatment for all disabled employees, because discrimination will occur only on the basis of an individual company's policy. Two people treated in exactly the same way by different employers will have entirely different entitlements.
	The Bill's main pillar is to introduce an assessment to determine whether disabled persons can be supported in the workplace, for example through "access to work", or whether in more serious cases they need a period of leave, as Roger Lewis did for three months. That would secure far greater structure and certainty for both employers and employees. The Bill would also provide a much-needed vehicle to remedy the problems with the current provisions' link to discrimination, which I have raised.
	I started by saying that there was broad consensus in the House on the need to ensure support for people who become disabled while in employment, and already 133 Members from nine parties have attached their names to a motion in support of my Bill. While Members' support is gratefully received, what is more pressing—and will, I hope, cause every Government member to get behind the Bill—is the fact that 25,000 people this year alone will, like Roger Lewis, be in need of these changes.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Robertson, Jim Sheridan, Mr. David Blunkett, Miss Anne Begg, John Bercow, Paul Rowen, Mr. Mike Weir, Julie Morgan, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Dr. Richard Taylor, Ann McKechin and Mrs. Sharon Hodgson.

Employment Retention

John Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 60].

Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 January],
	That the Order of 28th January be amended as follows: in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 1, in the third column—
	(a) for '4&frac12; hours' substitute '3&frac12; hours', and
	(b) for '1&frac12; hours' substitute '2&frac12; hours'.  —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

Lisbon Treaty (No.1)
	 — 
	(1st Allotted Day)

[Relevant documents:  The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, on Justice and Home Affairs Issues at European Union Level, HC 76, and the Government's response, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, HC 1 021 .]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy.
	The UK's co-operation with our European Union partners across a range of justice and home affairs issues stems, rightly, from the Maastricht treaty. From tackling organised crime to taking action against terrorism, and from providing greater protection of children to ensuring the security of our borders, this co-operation has been, and continues to be, driven by the real challenges we face today. Criminals organise and operate internationally, and we need to work closely with our European and international partners to tackle their activities. In particular, we need to ensure that the EU focuses on these issues, and truly and demonstrably adds value where that makes sense for Britain.
	The Lisbon treaty provides the next step in the evolution of justice and home affairs co-operation. It allows us to work more effectively to improve public security and protection, to protect British citizens in their daily lives and to provide mechanisms to help our citizens and businesses living and working abroad. The issues that matter to our people—tackling crime, countering terrorism and securing our borders—are not merely issues of domestic concern. They are, rightly, at the heart of our work in the EU as well.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary's opening words about the importance for the EU of moving this forward. If this is such a positive move, why have the Government had to negotiate so many opt-outs and opt-ins?

Jacqui Smith: I am coming precisely to the point about the success of the Government's negotiations in ensuring that, through the treaty provisions, we are able, in a much-enlarged EU, both to make progress on some of the issues that are of concern to us and to safeguard our national interests by delivering the opt-in. It was a negotiating triumph. Perhaps more important than the details of the negotiations or ongoing institutional wrangles is the way in which our active involvement in the EU is bringing results.

John Redwood: Why did the Home Secretary not just say that Great Britain wishes to keep in place the original architecture—outside the EU treaty and European Court of Justice jurisdiction—and to co-operate with other member states where appropriate, so that we preserve our veto and future Parliaments can change their mind if they wish? The problem with her system is that future Parliaments will be bound by any decision she makes.

Jacqui Smith: I made it absolutely clear that I felt—I shall outline this when I make some progress in my speech—that having the benefits of taking EU co-operation forward through the new treaty arrangements alongside the protection of UK interests negotiated through our opt-ins on a range of justice and home affairs areas was the right balance to deliver the sorts of results that we wanted.

William Cash: rose—

Jacqui Smith: I was going to discuss those sorts of results, but I see that I shall now take further interventions. I suspect that they will not be about how we cut crime, counter terrorism and protect our borders, and that they may well be about something else.

William Cash: This certainly will be germane to the subject matter that we are discussing. I would like the Home Secretary to answer a simple question. A wide range of matters are contained in these provisions. Is she aware that in the other countries, particularly France and Germany, the judges are appointed by political decision-making processes in their own constitutional arrangements? In respect of the application of those provisions, such a process differs significantly from the way in which this country conducts its justice and home affairs.

Jacqui Smith: That is precisely why we were right to negotiate the opt-in on each justice and home affairs measure. I am not clear what point the hon. Gentleman is making.
	I said that I would move on, so I shall do so. Our active involvement in the EU is bringing results. The European arrest warrant procedure has been one of the most high-profile justice and home affairs measures in recent years. It has allowed us to secure the return of those who seek to evade justice by crossing borders and in some cases it has helped to cut years off extradition times. That is a prime example—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Jacqui Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Bernard Jenkin: In 2006, the previous Prime Minister gave a very clear undertaking to the House of Commons. He said that he would ensure that the justice system
	"is radically overhauled so that those"
	—foreign nationals—
	"who are convicted of a serious criminal offence are deported automatically."—[ Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 961.]
	Since then, the Chindamo case has taken place. Will the Lisbon treaty provide the British Government with the wherewithal to deport foreign criminals automatically, or will we still be subject to the provisions of the rights of the foreign criminal under European Community treaties, as set out in the UK Borders Act 2007?

Jacqui Smith: Generally, as we have announced recently, we have exceeded our target set last year to deport foreign national prisoners. We legislated in the UK Borders Act 2007 along the lines set out by the former Prime Minister on that occasion. The new provisions of the treaty and our active engagement in justice and home affairs activities enables us to raise issues within the EU, where they exist, and to make progress. I am confident that we will be able to do so.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Jacqui Smith: I think I have answered the question put by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary touched on the European arrest warrant. That is a good example, because by virtue of what is happening, she will have to make a decision in the next four and a half years as to whether the European arrest warrant will be subject to the new regime by opting in, whereby the ECJ will have ultimate jurisdiction, along with the Commission's enforcement powers, in respect of it. That is very different from the current arrangement, which is an international treaty obligation that the United Kingdom could decide not to follow if it infringed the human rights of those affected. We will be surrendering the final say about that entirely to a supranational body.

Jacqui Smith: No. As the hon. Gentleman identified, on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.

Keith Vaz: May I take the Home Secretary back to the substance of this debate, rather than the froth of the Eurosceptics that seems to happen every single day that we discuss this issue? This morning, Sir Stephen Lander, the chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, and he stated clearly how important European co-operation was in the fight against drugs and terrorism and in detecting serious crime. What further steps can we take to aid such co-operation between all the EU partners?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend is right, and in the body of my speech I will come on to precisely that point. I agree with him that that is the fundamental issue about which people are concerned, and not what he rightly describes as the froth. In the spirit of debate, I am taking interventions, although they have not been especially to do with the issues that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, which are likely to be of concern to people outside the Chamber.

Edward Davey: Can the Home Secretary confirm that in the Lisbon treaty the UK has negotiated opt-ins and opt-outs on areas in justice and home affairs that previously required the full participation of the UK in EU law? Those areas were given away by the Conservatives under the Maastricht treaty, and under the Lisbon treaty they will revert to UK control.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has managed to rise above the froth and make an important point.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Why is the Home Secretary deliberately confusing the need for international co-operation in the war against terrorism and crime with the separate issue of whether we should hand over powers irrevocably to another law-making body? She has already seen the result of that in the promise by the Prime Minister to repatriate foreign nationals at the end of their sentence, which turned out to be incompatible with laws to which she had signed up in the European Union. If this House has already lost its powers to meet prime ministerial promises, why is she considering further laws to hand over more powers irrevocably to another jurisdiction?

Jacqui Smith: I began to explain the opportunities that the treaty will give us to work more effectively in an EU of 27 to deliver further protection on a range of issues. I had mentioned the European arrest warrant, and I was about to give the example of the case of Hussain Osman, one of those suspected of the attempted bombings of 21 July 2005. He fled to Italy, but we were able to secure his rapid return, 56 days after the EAW was issued. He has since been convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Without the European arrest warrant, we would still have to face the fact that some member states refused to extradite their own nationals. Without it, extraditing criminals and terrorists from other member states would still be a lengthy, complex and expensive process.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way again, in the spirit of Committee debates, but she is aware that the European arrest warrant is not without its difficulties. There are examples of United Kingdom citizens who have been arrested and sent to other European countries on allegations of relatively trivial offences who have languished in custody. There was a case in Spain recently of two young men who were accused of uttering a forged note in the Canary Islands. Such people can languish in prison for long periods. That ought to be of concern to the Home Secretary in defending the rights of British citizens. Does she not understand that, while acknowledging the merits of the European arrest warrant, once such things are subject to the European Court of Justice and the Commission, she and the Government will lose all control over standing up for United Kingdom interests in these areas? Once in place, such things are irrevocable, and all that the opt-ins do is delay that moment by a maximum of four and a half years. What will the Home Secretary do at the end of that period in respect of the European arrest warrant?

Jacqui Smith: I have already outlined what the position will be in four and a half years. I do not take the hon. Gentleman's charge that there are considerable problems with the European arrest warrant—I have identified considerable benefits of having negotiated it—but I am completely clear that, if we need to improve those procedures further, the way to do so in an EU of 27 members is through active engagement in justice and home affairs discussions and negotiations in the way that the treaty facilitates. Some of the views of Opposition Members would actively work against that by removing us from that sort of active involvement in making decisions that would benefit British people and improve protection across the whole EU.

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if we are to face the much greater problems that we now have with international terrorism, we cannot but do that in any way other than to work very closely and continuously with our neighbours—that needs a provision that goes beyond where we are now—and that co-operation in a general sense is not satisfactory when we face such a very present and important threat?

Jacqui Smith: I think that the right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Intergovernmental co-operation can only take us so far, and the commitment to the sort of institutional arrangements in the treaty will help us to address some of those problems.

David Winnick: Is it not absolutely inconceivable that we can combat the acute terrorist danger that European countries— certainly ours and our close allies as well—face without the closest co-operation on the international scene? It is absolutely amazing, unless it is pure xenophobia, that the Opposition do not recognise that.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes the case extremely strongly. We have now heard that from my hon. Friends and from right hon. Gentlemen in the Opposition. To move on with the substance—

James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. I want to make some progress.
	An example is the asylum arrangements agreed under the Dublin regulation, which is underpinned by the Eurodac fingerprint database and part of the common European asylum system agreed by member states to prevent asylum shopping. These arrangements allow the Border and Immigration Agency to check the fingerprints of asylum seekers against records in other European countries and to return those who have already lodged a claim in another member state or who have entered the UK illegally. Since 2003, the UK has returned more than 6,000 asylum seekers to other member states under that system—arrangements saving us about £8 million a year.

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important point about the impact of co-operation and opting in, for instance, to the asylum qualifications directive under earlier arrangements. Does she agree that, contrary to the argument that we have heard being put by Opposition Members, it is precisely our ability to opt in to arrangements that are legally binding on every member state that gives us the forceful action that is needed in the European Union to deal with problems such as illegal immigration?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the increased strength over and above simply an intergovernmental process of co-operation that comes from the treaty provisions on justice and home affairs. Coupled with strong domestic enforcement action on immigration and crime, action at EU level can clearly work in Britain's interest.

James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: No, I shall make a bit of progress first.
	On the fight against drugs, we have joined other EU partners in establishing the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre—Narcotics in order better to tackle bulk smuggling of cocaine across the Atlantic. By sharing intelligence with our partners and backing it up operationally, we increase opportunities for intercepting drugs and help to cut the supply of drugs before they reach our streets. We also benefit from international work against the vile crime of human trafficking.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: In a moment.
	During our last presidency of the EU, we introduced the EU action plan against trafficking. Along with our action to ratify the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking by the end of this year, the action plan will strengthen our hand in the fight against that horrific modern-day form of slavery and make life harder for traffickers in the UK and throughout the EU.

James Clappison: The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. May I take her back to the opt-in and its value? Will she take the House through the procedures that will follow under the protocol if the United Kingdom should choose not to opt in to existing measures after four years and six months, or to anything that comes about as a result of amendments in the meantime? What procedure will be followed, and what penalties will the United Kingdom face if it chooses not to opt in?

Jacqui Smith: The process is spelled out reasonably clearly, but I do not intend to go through it in detail now. It is straightforward and safeguards the UK's ability to opt in. I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there are penalties for not opting in. That is not the case.

James Clappison: Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us what description she would choose to apply to an article that states
	"the United Kingdom shall bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in those acts."
	That is compensation, is it not?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is referring to circumstances in which the UK decides not to opt in to a measure that amends or builds on another. He is quoting selectively, of course—

James Clappison: It is in the treaty.

Jacqui Smith: Just let me finish. The hon. Gentleman quotes selectively, because the first stage of that process would be a situation in which the UK's decision not to opt in to a measure rendered the underlying measure inoperable. That is an extremely high hurdle. The provision refers to unavoidable, directly incurred financial consequences of the underlying measure being rendered inoperable, not to a penalty or a fine. For example, if the UK decided not to opt in to a database that then became inoperable, it is not unreasonable that the cost of withdrawing from that database might have to be met. That is not a fine or a penalty; it is a direct financial consequence, and it would be incurred only in circumstances where the underlying measure was completely inoperable; that is a very high hurdle.

Dominic Grieve: If the threshold at which the penalty system operates is so high, why could the Government not secure the same sort of exemptions as the Danish Government, which allowed them to maintain the status quo for as long as they wanted and which were latched into the system? When I read the treaty, I inferred that because of the United Kingdom's key involvement in European decision making on justice and on crime and its suppression, it would be difficult to implement many of the measures and might well cause problems if we did not participate. I am afraid that I do not share the optimistic view that only in rare cases will we have to bear the financial costs.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman might not share my optimism, but he is wrong about the basis of the negotiation and the basis of the direct financial consequences to which he referred.
	I shall make a little progress on substantive issues. At the same time as negotiating on the issues that I described, I have been discussing with my counterparts such matters as how the EU can ensure the protection of our children. The JHA Council agreed some years ago that all member states should have in place basic criminal offences to ensure the prosecution of those seeking to exploit or abuse children. That, incidentally, is a good example of where the strength of an EU agreement far outweighs anything that could be delivered simply through intergovernmental co-operation.
	The JHA Council also agreed measures to improve the way in which we receive information on convictions against those who have committed such offences within the EU. The UK is taking that work forward through a joint project with several other countries on the electronic exchange of criminal records information.
	In tackling child abuse, the UK and other member states have been able to count on the work of Eurojust and Europol, including the successful co-ordination of an operation involving 28 countries to crack an online child sexual abuse case. Ongoing investigation and co-operation of member states through Europol led to significant arrests, including 46 in the UK, the identification of 2,500 "customers" worldwide, and the seizure of thousands of computers, videos and photographs.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. On data sharing, is she satisfied that the necessary protections exist among our partner countries, so that data that we send them will be protected and data that come to us will also be protected? That is extremely sensitive and important information about individual people.

Jacqui Smith: I know that that is an issue that my right hon. Friend's Select Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, raised in its consideration of the matter. Further to the response that we gave at that time, progress is being made on the data protection framework directive within the EU, which will provide some of the reassurances that my right hon. Friend and the Committee were looking for.

John Gummer: What assurances has the Home Secretary given to our European partners that their data will be better protected than she has managed with respect to the protection of our data?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman was too helpful last time. I should have quit while I was ahead.
	Looking to the future, there is more that can be done at EU level to strengthen the efforts that I have identified, particularly in relation to child protection. At the informal JHA Council last week, the UK presented a paper which argued for further co-operation to introduce mechanisms to monitor sex offenders across Europe, and to tackle the obscene and harmful child abuse content that can be found on the internet.

Edward Davey: Can the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that the UK will exercise its opt-in to co-operate with other European member states in this area? Surely it is much better to get stronger protection for our children through the approach that she is outlining than through an intergovernmental approach.

Jacqui Smith: What I was outlining to the hon. Gentleman was not whether we would take a decision on a measure that was being proposed to us, but that the UK was in a position to lead that work across Europe. What we need to ask ourselves is how we can ensure that other countries across Europe that may not have child protection provisions as well developed as ours will also be subject to the provisions that we put in place. Only by developing the sort of work that the treaty sets out and the certainty that that provides can we be confident that when we reach agreement on such serious issues, that agreement will exist across the whole of the EU.

Dominic Grieve: I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; it may just help to tease out one of the key issues. I have no objection to the United Kingdom getting involved, as was debated a moment ago, in that particular area. However, does she not see a distinction between getting involved under the existing provision—a mere international treaty obligation—and getting involved under the opt-in provisions that, once the treaty is in force, place the obligations and their enforceability into the hands of the European Court of Justice and the Commission?
	I would just like a view from the Home Secretary on whether she sees any difference between the two mechanisms. The issue may well be where the real difference between us lies; I suggest to her that there is an enormous difference between the two concepts in respect of the maintenance of national rights and sovereignty over those issues.

Jacqui Smith: ECJ jurisdiction already applies to the existing provisions on migration and asylum, for which we are already able to operate our opt-in. Some of the examples that I have already given have answered the hon. Gentleman's charge. In fact, as I have identified, the way in which we will take forward the treaty, with the safeguards that we have put in it, is likely to enable us to make progress across the whole EU.

Gisela Stuart: What slightly troubles me is that at the moment we envisage circumstances in which, for example, other countries are forced to do things in respect of child protection that we think right and proper; we think that that would be a good thing. However, can the Home Secretary not envisage circumstances in which we would be forced by qualified majority voting to do things that we would not think appropriate if we had decided on our own what should amount to a criminal offence and what should not? What could we do about that?

Jacqui Smith: The nature of the opt-in that we have negotiated means that we could decide not to opt in to such provisions. That is the strength of our negotiating position—our final position—on justice and home affairs.

Bob Spink: rose—

Rob Marris: rose—

Jeremy Wright: rose—

Jacqui Smith: I will make a little more progress. The sharing of information that I was talking about is not only relevant for child protection; JHA co-operation has given us access to crucial data-sharing arrangements to tackle terrorism and serious crime—for example, introducing a mechanism that will allow the police to access fingerprint, DNA and vehicle registration information held by other member states so that we can prevent, detect and investigate serious crimes in the UK.
	Today I have set out the benefits to the UK that come from better co-operation across the EU: speeding up extradition, strengthening our borders and improving asylum arrangements; smarter ways of working to stop drug smugglers; joint action against human trafficking; new protections for children; and new ways to share information vital to our efforts to tackle terrorism and serious crime.

Bob Spink: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: I will allow the voice of the Better Off Out group to speak.

Bob Spink: The Home Secretary is very generous. Will she explain why it would be in the UK's interests, for instance, to give the EU powers to set minimum and maximum prison sentences? How can that be in our interests?

Jacqui Smith: Previously, the very fact that certain criminal offences can be recognised throughout the EU has been important. Let us take the issue of recognising the definition and the nature of terrorism: when that agreement was reached, only seven of the 15 countries had a definition of terrorism. It is obviously a good thing for us and our security across the EU to be able to ensure that there is a common definition of terrorism.

Rob Marris: May I ask my right hon. Friend to shift the focus slightly—although perhaps not now—and deal also with civil justice, which comes under the justice rubric of today's debate? Civil justice offers protections, through co-operation, for families with abducted children, consumers—with the proposals for a European small claims court—and, above all, for business, which sometimes has great difficulty in taking effective legal proceedings against parties in other member states because of the lack of co-operation between the judicial authorities. Surely there are other benefits in the civil justice system which we should not overlook.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will get to that point, but he has made it eloquently.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I might not get to it.

Peter Bone: On human trafficking, how will this new treaty improve the current situation in dealing with co-operation not only between European Union countries but countries outside the EU?

Jacqui Smith: Article 69B of the Lisbon treaty defines trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children as a
	"particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension".
	As such, measures can be adopted to establish minimum rules on criminal offences and sanctions. Those measures would of course be subject to the UK opt-in and the emergency brake, but in my view they would help us to ensure that the seriousness with which we address human trafficking in this country is shared across the whole of the EU. This is a good example, I am afraid, of a crime that would not be as well addressed were the hon. Gentleman's view that we would be better off out of Europe to be the case. There is no way that we can tackle cross-border crime such as human trafficking by reverting to our borders and believing that we can address it most effectively in the domestic environment.

Peter Bone: Human trafficking is a European problem and a world problem, not an EU problem, and we should co-operate with all the countries involved. The Home Secretary failed to give one single concrete reason why the new treaty would improve the situation and reduce human trafficking, other than quoting some words from the treaty. If we are talking about words, can she tell me what concrete reduction in human trafficking this treaty will bring?

Jacqui Smith: Earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed it—I referred to the fact that we were able to negotiate, under the UK's presidency, an EU action plan on trafficking that enables us to put in place not just good practice but shared standards on how we could safeguard victims and be clear about offences; of course, implementing it is important as well. If the hon. Gentleman reads  Hansard, he will see that I gave a specific and detailed answer to his previous question.
	To deliver on these issues of concern and to give our citizens the right levels of protection, we clearly need to engage actively in tackling crime and immigration at the EU level. The alternative promulgated by some Conservative Members—to disengage from Europe, to focus on the domestic, and to depend on ad hoc intergovernmental arrangements—is not only unrealistic but an ineffective and inadequate response to the challenges that we face.

Sally Keeble: To return to the point about trafficking brought up by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), several women and children in my own constituency, just up the road, have come in with every sign of having been trafficked from countries well outside the EU but with EU passports. Part of the traffickers' supply train runs through Europe, and without the powers in this legislation it will not be possible to chase them up and deal with them properly.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the route through which women are often trafficked, and she is absolutely right.
	In negotiating the justice and home affairs chapter, the Government made clear their absolute determination to protect our common law system and police and judicial processes. We were clear that EU co-operation in this area should not affect fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system. We have achieved that outcome. The extended opt-in arrangements that we have secured mean that we have a complete choice as to whether to participate in any JHA measure. We have also ensured that the jurisdiction of the ECJ cannot be imposed on the UK in this area—it will apply only to the extent that we have chosen to participate in a JHA measure. As each proposal for new EU legislation on JHA comes forward, we will have the right to decide whether we participate in it. In many cases, given the importance of the issues in question, some of which we have touched on today, it will clearly be in the UK's interests to do so, but in others we have secured the right not to participate and not to have the resulting legislation apply to the UK. I have already explained the position with respect to the existing body of EU law on police and criminal judicial co-operation and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The deal is significantly better than that under the defunct constitutional treaty and represents a huge negotiating success.

Jeremy Wright: On the specific issue of whether this is a negotiating success, may I refer the Home Secretary back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), from which she was very keen to move on? Is not the fact of the matter that the Government have negotiated a situation that allows the UK to withdraw from some of the arrangements, but only at a price? That price will be determined by a qualified majority vote on the recommendation of the Commission—a decision in which the UK will not be involved.

Jacqui Smith: No. In fact, I replied to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) at some length, and I outlined the circumstances in which there would be any direct financial outcomes. First, in order for such a matter even to be under consideration, the UK's decision not to opt in to an amending or building measure would have to render inoperable the measure to which it was an amendment. That is a pretty high threshold. Secondly, the only costs for which the UK could possibly be liable would be direct financial consequences that were unavoidable because of the impact of that decision. As I have now said that twice, I do not intend to go over it again.

John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary tell us how she would have felt if the previous outgoing Conservative Government had passed a series of laws that Labour did not like and had locked them all in by means of an opt-in so that they could not be repealed without the consent of most of the other member states? Is that a democratic way of proceeding?

Jacqui Smith: I would have hoped that any Government had negotiated hard in Britain's interest. I would have hoped to see negotiating success such as that which we have seen in this case, although I am not sure that that Conservative Government would have achieved it. I also would have expected lengthy and detailed scrutiny of the proposals, along the same lines as that which we are carrying out and that will take place over the coming days. That is what the Government are delivering.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: I will—those on the Opposition Front Bench are making free despite their ability to make speeches later.

Edward Garnier: I am deeply grateful to the Home Secretary for allowing me to intervene. There is not a great deal of time for us to make speeches because the debate is limited to three and a half hours. Will she estimate the financial consequences to which the UK might be exposed through the limited financial repercussions that she mentioned a moment ago? She seems to be saying that that will not happen, but presumably she has some idea of how many billions or millions—or just hundreds—that that exposure might involve.

Jacqui Smith: As I have spent some time explaining, the chances that any direct financial consequences would arise are very slim, given the high threshold that would have to be reached before any consideration of the matter could take place.
	Based on the foundation that I have spelled out, we can continue to work with our European partners to our mutual benefit. That does not always require changes to the UK, which is what Conservative Members often focus on. For example, I have already talked about our success in agreeing a common set of terrorist offences in 2002.
	We benefited from the work at EU level to strengthen external borders. Even though we do not participate in the Schengen border arrangements that apply in most member states and have explicitly reserved our right to maintain our frontier controls, we have benefited from those efforts. Most transit routes to the UK for illegal migration and people trafficking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) mentioned, lie through the territory of EU member states. By working with bodies such as the border agency Frontex, we can help to reduce the flow of migrants in transit to the UK.
	As well as protecting our citizens, JHA co-operation can provide the means to help them live, work, buy, sell, study and do business in another European country with the same levels of protection and assurance as they have in their own. Instruments that make it easier to undertake cross-border litigation are necessary because such cases can be substantially more expensive than purely domestic litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to point out that a European small claims court procedure will apply within a year which could, for example, help holidaymakers to obtain redress if they have bought faulty goods in another country. In addition, businesses will have a range of options for obtaining judgments against those in other member states who owe them money.
	We have always been adamant that EU co-operation must be in Britain's national interest. It must not—and it will not—adversely affect fundamental aspects of our justice system, nor undermine our ability to safeguard national security. Equally, we have seen the clear benefits that co-operation can bring to public protection, the management of our borders and the delivery of justice. Our opt-in on justice and home affairs will allow us to continue to participate in measures where that makes sense for Britain, while safeguarding our national interests at the same time.
	We face a clear choice. Agreeing the Lisbon treaty allows us to put institutional negotiations behind us, and to get on with the job of work that our citizens expect us to do. We can choose to work in Britain's interests and deliver greater protections in the fight against crime and for our national borders—or, as we have seen this afternoon from Opposition Members, we can devote ourselves to ongoing institutional wrangling that in actual fact works only in the interests of those whose ultimate goal would be to withdraw Britain from the EU entirely.
	Our citizens are safer and our country is more secure as a result of our active involvement in the EU, and I commend this motion to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from "House" to end, and to add instead thereof:
	"disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning fighting cross-border crime, justice, policing, human trafficking and asylum and migration policy because the Treaty weakens the UK's ability to determine its own policy in these important fields, would bring to an end the intergovernmental nature of EU co-operation over policing and criminal justice, abolishes the safeguard of the national veto in almost all remaining areas in justice and home affairs matters and creates the possibility that the UK could be fined for refusing to participate in certain legislation in these areas; and notes that the European Scrutiny Committee, in its Third Report of Session 2007-08, HC 16-iii, paragraph 75, is "concerned that the interpretation of the red line to "protect UK civil and criminal justice" as only requiring control of the decision to opt in or not does not recognise the loss of protection that will occur every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.".'.
	I was truly sorry to hear the manner in which the Home Secretary approached the debate. We have rather important topics to discuss, but her facility for avoiding some of the basic facts that the House needs to consider is breathtaking, and it is coupled with the completely inadequate amount of time that has been made available for us properly to scrutinise the Bill.
	The Home Secretary told us that the treaty was a negotiating triumph. I can think of many ways to describe the treaty but, by referring back to what the Government said about some of the clauses that they have now accepted, I shall try to show that it is a little difficult to see it as a triumph when it contains so much that the Government so vociferously objected to previously. The Home Secretary has a facility—it might be a good thing in a politician—for glossing over some of the unpleasant fundamental facts about the treaty, its nature and the future of the EU.
	A moment ago, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) described me as a Eurosceptic. That is a little difficult: I am half French, and not normally sceptical about half of myself. I must tell the Home Secretary that I am beginning to think that I shall have to apply for a French passport to escape her identity card provisions. That might be my only recourse.

Keith Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: In a moment. I can tell the Home Secretary that I believe fully in co-operation between European states and that I have no difficulty at all with the concept of intergovernmental co-operation. However, the first question that the right hon. Lady should have asked is, "What is the treaty actually about for those member states that intend to participate in it fully?"
	There can be only one answer to that question. The treaty sets up the architecture to deliver common norms of criminal justice and policing through the harmonisation of criminal justice laws and the recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions. That is as fundamental a change in the EU's nature as there has been since its foundation. Our European partners have taken a decision—and they are fully entitled to do so if they wish—that must inevitably lead over a prolonged period, through the operation of qualified majority voting, and the work of the Commission and the European Court of Justice, towards harmonisation. In 30 or 40 years' time, there will be common systems of justice controlled from outside nation states in order to ensure conformity. That is the model they have chosen to adopt, and they make no secret of it. The Home Secretary looks glum; I am sorry that she cannot accept the reality. That is what they have chosen to do, and the UK Government have said repeatedly that they want it to happen—certainly in terms of our own involvement.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the Government did not want these provisions. I have a list of the 40 amendments tabled by the Government representative at the Convention on the Future of Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), of which only two succeeded: one of them deleted "safety" and inserted "security". If that is a negotiating triumph, does my hon. Friend wonder what a failure might have been like?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The fact is that the Government lost out in the negotiating process and did not achieve their aims. Perhaps they were in a difficult position. Somewhere in the Departments, somebody is advising the Home Secretary, correctly, that the developments in criminal justice that the European Union wish to pursue do not sit easily with notions of national independence, which in this country are underpinned by the rule of law and our common law principles. There is no escaping that; it is part of our national tradition. The same applies to Scotland, which also has a common law and Roman-Dutch law tradition mix. Such a system does not fit neatly with a Napoleonic model, which much of the parts of the treaty that deal with judicial and criminal matters are all about.

Tony Baldry: Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whether one is Euro-positive or Eurosceptic, the intellectually disingenuous part of the Government's position is that they broadly welcome the Lisbon treaty, but whenever they are challenged about something nasty in it, they say, "Don't worry, there is a red line." Intellectually, one cannot have it both ways. We heard very little from the Home Secretary about the so-called red lines. Does my hon. Friend have any confidence that the red lines—if they are necessary, as the Government say they are—will hold?

Dominic Grieve: I have serious doubts about the red lines, and I shall come back to them in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes another important point. The Home Secretary spent most of her time saying that the red lines would provide protection, but the rest of her speech dealt with how international co-operation facilitated by the EU had benefited this country. I have no reason to disagree with that in some cases, although I might in relation to some examples. What she was not prepared to debate was the text of the treaty. It is the treaty that we are signing. We might have opt-ins, but it is the treaty to which we wish to become a party, and it envisages a major and profound change, taking the European Union from being an economic grouping with common interests in social policy areas to one with a single justice system. That must be where we are going.

William Cash: In relation to Denmark, and the Home Secretary's claim that there was some sort of negotiating triumph, the Danish position has been preserved in the words of one of the protocols. Judicial co-operation will continue to apply to Denmark, unchanged in its present form, even if subsequently amended or replaced under the reform treaty. We did not, therefore, even do as well as Denmark.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. I tried to intervene on the Home Secretary to ask her about that. The European Union could not afford to give the United Kingdom the opt-outs that it gave Denmark because of the difficulties arising from our participation in several key areas. The Home Secretary simply did not reply to that point—I do not know whether she will do so during the debate. However, it is a material issue for the House to consider.

Bob Spink: Perhaps my hon. Friend can set out the nine important aspects of home affairs and justice that the treaty will abolish and that this country is effectively surrendering to the EU, and the impact of that surrender on our control of home affairs in this country?

Dominic Grieve: I fear that I might disappoint my hon. Friend because it is a three-and-a-half-hour debate and I cannot do what he asks unless I prevent all my hon. Friends and all other hon. Members from contributing. I intended to use some examples to cover my points, albeit not comprehensively, but we have been denied the opportunity to debate individual amendments.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the House could do itself more justice if the Government allocated suitable time for the issues to be debated properly? Those of us who support the treaty of Lisbon could then explain the basis of our support. The Government have refused all of us the right to debate the issues.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend. My experience of the Chamber is that, if one bothers to come in and listen to the debate, one learns a great deal, especially from other people's points of view. What really gets me is that we are reduced to soundbites over a short period instead of being allowed to consider measures properly. That is one thing that will ultimately do the Government in. It is a shameful state of affairs, which means that Bills are passed without our fully understanding the Government's position, and the Government do not listen to their critics' comments, which might enable measures to be improved.

Bernard Jenkin: Learco Chindamo committed the notorious murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence and the Government spent a considerable amount of money on trying to extradite him to his home country. They failed because of the provisions on free movement of persons. Is not it a failure of their negotiation that we still cannot, under the treaty of Lisbon, automatically extradite the foreign criminals whom the Prime Minister promised we could extradite?

Dominic Grieve: The Government were foolish to sign up to the relevant directive without scrutinising it properly—another thing in which, I fear, the House rather specialises.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, every time the Government opt in to an area of competence under the treaty, the House can no longer reach a free and independent view and repeal and amend it and it cannot be debated sensibly in a general election? The people, as well as Parliament, have lost their power.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right and I shall deal with that point towards the end of remarks.
	Let me consider, not thoroughly because I do not have the time, examples of the Lisbon treaty's not matching up to what the Government claim or the Government's opinion of it when the text was being negotiated in the past few years. Let me begin with article 61. The Home Secretary issued a parliamentary Labour party briefing today, which states:
	"The European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction across all Justice & Home Affairs—except for some aspects of police co-operation and Member State action concerning law and order and internal security."
	Indeed, the Government have argued that internal security must remain a national issue, yet article 61 specifically provides:
	"A standing committee shall be set up...to ensure that Operational cooperation on internal security is promoted and strengthened within the Union."
	The status of that committee and whether it is the embryo of a far more bureaucratic model for ensuring conformity in nation states remain entirely unclear. There is a generic power under article 61G for the Council to "ensure administrative cooperation" between national police and criminal justice systems, which will arguably allow the Commission to gain access to sensitive national information.
	During the negotiations, the Government criticised the article and said that they considered it to be unacceptable and unnecessary and sought to get it deleted, but failed to do so.

Ken Purchase: A good negotiating stance.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may say that, and I could forgive the Government if there were just one or two isolated examples. However, one can go through the text of the treaty and find one example after another of where the Government said that they thought the text was unnecessary and dangerous from the United Kingdom's point of view, but then accepted it.

Ken Purchase: That is absolutely correct. If the hon. Gentleman had ever been in negotiations, he would understand that one takes a "give some, take some" approach. What our Government set out to do in that negotiation was to achieve their red lines, and that is what they have done.

Dominic Grieve: What happened in the negotiations calls for some explanation from the Government, but we have not yet heard a word of explanation from the Home Secretary.
	It is argued that co-ordinating immigration policy might have benefits. I fully acknowledge that, but let us consider just one thing: the rights of third country nationals, including those who might have irregular status or be having their status regularised, to move around the EU at will. The Government said that they considered the retention of a national immigration policy to be essential. That was rather strong language, but they clearly no longer consider that essential, because they have allowed the provisions to which they objected to go through.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) commented, quite rightly, on civil justice. The Government were seriously concerned about a clause in article 65 on civil justice and the maintenance of judicial independence. If I may say so to the Home Secretary, that does not seem to be a slight matter. The Government's concerns concentrated on the fact that, in a rather innocuous form, article 65 said that it would provide
	"support for the training of the judiciary and judicial staff."
	The Government were not against that; indeed, one can see that it might be quite useful in some European countries, particularly some of the new accession members. The Government wanted the inclusion of an easy little phrase that would recognise the need to maintain judicial independence, but the European Union negotiators—the other participants—denied them that amendment.
	What is the Home Secretary's view about that? Does she consider it irrelevant? I should like to give her an opportunity to intervene, if she wants to. I do not think that the independence of the judiciary is an irrelevant consideration, so I hope that we shall hear from the Government at some point in this debate about that important point.
	There are other examples to which one can turn, particularly in the field of crime and justice. Crime and justice, despite the Home Secretary's trying gently to avoid the point, have never been subject to any of the European Union architecture, until now. There is bilateral co-operation under the aegis of the European Union, but there is no enforceability in respect of the agreements that we reach. That is to change, particularly if the Government choose to opt in.
	What are we to make of article 69A, which provides, for example, that there may be provision for the EU to take powers to deal with
	"the rights of individuals in criminal procedure"?
	I simply say this to all my hon. Friends—to those who may be in favour of the treaty or those who may be against it: the House is entitled to an explanation of why that provision is included, what the Government think about it and whether, leaving aside the opt-in for one moment, they think that there is any risk of intrusive activity by the Commission and the European Court of Justice in criminal procedure, which is an area in which they have consistently said that they ought not to be involved? Indeed, the Government said:
	"Paragraph 2 is unacceptable in its current form. In particular, the intent on the 'definition of the rights of individuals in criminal procedure' would cover almost any aspect of criminal procedure during an investigation, prosecution and conviction. It is essential that this article is restricted in scope and is made subject to unanimity."
	In terms of the generality of the treaty, however, they have secured nothing of the kind.

Rob Marris: Does not article 82 on page 70 of the consolidated text document, of which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have a copy, state:
	"Adoption of the minimum rules referred to in this paragraph shall not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing a higher level of protection for individuals"?

Dominic Grieve: That might be the case, but the Government's position has consistently been that the European Union should not intervene in criminal procedure. I shall make a few more comments about this in a moment, but I say to the Home Secretary that the potential undermining of the criminal justice system through the mechanisms of the treaty is without doubt the most serious aspect of the treaty in its entirety. It has nothing whatever to do with the legitimate aims of the European Union.

Denis MacShane: Is not the most important part of any criminal procedure its very beginning, when a person is arrested? Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he is going to revert to the old Tory position of hostility to the European arrest warrant?

Dominic Grieve: I shall come on to the European arrest warrant later. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes leaps up like a jack-in-the-box, but I have a funny feeling that he might not have been in the Chamber during the Home Secretary's opening speech, otherwise, he would have heard the exchanges on this issue. I recommend that he read them in  Hansard, but I will come back to this matter later.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if we are to have mutual enforcement of criminal rules between the 27 member states, it is legitimate to have minimum standards of protection for individuals in all our criminal procedures, particularly as the treaty makes it clear that, if we wish, we can impose higher standards in our procedures—as we choose to do—to protect individuals in our criminal process? Is there really anything wrong with that? Are we to help to facilitate criminal processes in other countries if they are not respecting the minimum standards that the 27 member states expect to be followed?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend must consider the extent to which this might be an opportunity for rules to be made and imposed on our criminal procedures from outside. This raises difficult issues. As I said earlier, I do not object to the concept of international co-operation and treaty-making in order to achieve desired goals. I suggest, however, that there is a difference between a treaty reached under the aegis of the EU under third pillar structures—which seems to have been working well, and the Home Secretary told us all about the good things that have come from it—and a system in which we accept, once we have opted in, that areas of criminal justice policy and any amendments made to them will, for ever thereafter, be subject to the control of the Commission and the European Court of Justice. I do not think that that is a slight matter.
	I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the great failures of the Government has been to persuade their European partners of the success of the unanimity provisions and the third pillar, and to allow them to go gallivanting down this road. Articles 60 to 69 of the treaty seem to be a blueprint for achieving a Napoleonic system of justice throughout the countries that are signing up to it. It is perfectly plain that that is what is going to happen.

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Rob Marris: rose—

Dominic Grieve: There is a competition, so I give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased that he accepts the Maastricht settlement, the merits of which I recall having great difficulty persuading many colleagues when I was Home Secretary and taking it through the House. My hon. Friend is quite right to accept the co-operation that we now have and to say that the big change is that there will no longer be the third pillar, as provisions will be subject to the institutions. However, to take up his example of a few moments ago, is my hon. Friend really saying that there is a serious danger of the majority of other member states seeking to impose on us higher minimum standards of protection for the individual in our criminal processes than this House would find acceptable? I really think that that fear is fanciful: there might technically be a risk, but I have to say that, with respect, I simply do not believe that it will arise.

Dominic Grieve: May I take my right hon. and learned Friend back to the European arrest warrant? There might be arguments for the desirability of the European arrest warrant to speed up process, but I have to tell my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be impossible on any reasonable analysis to argue that the European arrest warrant has improved protection for defendants facing extradition. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend would attempt to say that, because it has short-circuited many of the rights that defendants previously had. If I may say so, that seems to me to be the precise area of criminal procedure that I was trying to highlight. Of course I accept that it is most unlikely that someone will come along and tell us that we have to change our criminal justice processes, but it could happen in areas where the EU is seeking to ensure conformity between countries—it will apply if we are opted in—in respect of practices that have cross-border implications. I really do not think that that can be brushed aside so simply.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generosity, but may I draw his attention again to article 82? Contrary to what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, this procedure goes through the European Parliament and the Council and in a sense provision is made for all states to opt out. Let me quote the article again. It states that the rules concern the
	"mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States;... the rights of individuals in criminal procedure;... the rights of victims of crime;... any other specific aspects of criminal procedure which the Council has identified in advance by decision; for the adoption of such a decision, the Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
	I emphasise "unanimously" and I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he seems to be overlooking the fact that this is a two-way street. If we are talking about minimum standards, they are minimum standards that protect my constituents in any of the other 26 member states. That is desirable. The hon. Gentleman must look at both sides of the coin.

Dominic Grieve: I can see the two sides of the coin, but under the current third pillar arrangements the UK may negotiate and reach unanimous decisions to bring in treaty obligations that do precisely what the hon. Gentleman seeks. If for any reason those treaty obligations start to unravel because of difficulties of interpretation, the UK is able to retain its sovereign right to act to protect its own citizens, but once that has been transferred by opting into the new system that the Government find so exciting the only way out will be through a denunciation of the European treaty in its entirety. As I happen to think that there are considerable benefits from EU membership, I do not particularly want that to happen. However, when one starts bringing into a treaty that has a largely economic foundation these areas of crime and justice, which the Government themselves insist should be a matter for national Parliaments, as time goes by we run a serious risk of having precisely that sort of problem. That is what we should be teasing out.

Michael Connarty: Let me return the hon. Gentleman to his attack on the European arrest warrant, which I thought very feeble. He pled that it was weak in defending the defendant, while failing to give it credit for allowing us to bring back from Rome very quickly one of the bombers who had killed people in this very city. Surely that is of more concern to our citizens than the argument that he is presenting.
	Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the robust stance taken by Home Office Ministers who said that they would not give up any of the defences in our own extradition treaty to secure the European arrest warrant? That is the Government's position, and the hon. Gentleman should applaud it. We are defending ourselves against the next phase that may arrive, and power lies with us to retain those provisions in our extradition treaty despite the European arrest warrant.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must tell him that the arrival of a system of arrest warrants is a very marked change from the previous position on extradition, which was that foreign Governments wishing to extradite British nationals had to show a prima facie case against them. It could be argued that the advantages to this country, administratively and in law-enforcement terms, of getting people out of foreign countries are considerable, but I do not think we should ignore the fact that a protection that has historically existed in our country's criminal justice system to prevent individuals from being sent abroad when there is not a sufficient case against them has been abandoned.
	I fully appreciate that the issues are difficult to reconcile. However, there is a difference between an international treaty on the basis of which the United Kingdom can treat discretely, and from which it can resile if necessary, and a system involving entrenchment in a complex series of treaty obligations that are of great economic interest to this country. It is beyond my comprehension that we should consider including crime and justice when the Government themselves have highlighted the dangers that are likely to flow from that.

James Clappison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: I will, but then I must make progress.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend has been very generous.
	Is it not the case that, as far as this country is concerned, the European arrest warrant has been decided under the existing third-pillar provisions, that the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction, and that the European Commission has no right of enforcement? Should not Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), address the question of what benefits this country could gain by allowing full jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and rights of enforcement for the European Commission? Does that not apply across the board?

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) replies, may I point out that interventions are becoming longer? They now include a prelude, a middle and a peroration. Given the limited time available for Back-Bench contributions, perhaps Back Benchers will keep their interventions concise.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is absolutely right. As I have said, the irony is that these developments appear not to have been necessary to achieve the objectives that the Government have previously set themselves. In areas in which unanimity has been achieved—I believe that there are nearly 80 examples—the Government have secured understandings and conventions with other European Union countries that may well improve our criminal justice system, but that is entirely different from surrendering jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. It is beyond my comprehension that the European Court of Justice should have such jurisdiction—I do not see the necessity—but, above all, I have heard no explanation from the Home Secretary of why the Government consider this acceptable, when in the early stages of the convention they spent so much time arguing against it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dominic Grieve: I will, for the last time.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, on the European arrest warrant this country keeps to the principle of dual criminality. We do not allow people to be extradited to another country for something that is not a crime in this country. The House has always insisted on that, and it is a provision in the Extradition Act 2003, but it is under threat from the Commission, which disapproves of the way in which the United Kingdom has implemented the arrest warrant. Does my hon. Friend agree that once it is governed by majority voting and the European Court of Justice, that provision insisted on by the House will be undermined?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is plainly the potential for it to be undermined by majority voting.
	That helps to explain why the Government's arguments on their red lines and opt-ins are so hollow. Far from solving their problems, the opt-ins and red lines will simply postpone over a four and a half-year period a series of decisions on which the Government are extremely reluctant to tell the House what they will do in individual instances. Each time they decide to opt in within the sphere of criminal justice, they will be—particularly with the possibility of amendments to follow—essentially providing a small hostage to fortune without knowing where the road will lead and without the ability to control the process other than by letting off the nuclear option of saying that the totality of our European Union treaty obligations will be abandoned. It is difficult to understand that to be an example of good government.
	The Government acknowledge that there are aspects of this treaty that we should approach with great caution—they also failed to negotiate properly with, or persuade, their partners about that. Yet they now tell us that that does not actually matter very much because the opt-ins will give protection. The opt-ins clearly will not do so. The real protection we had was under unanimity, and the problem we now have is that once every opt-in is negotiated we will have qualified majority voting. I simply wish to ask the Home Secretary a question—I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will deal with it. Which of the 80 matters to which we are now signatories do the Government think they can readily opt in to once this treaty is up and running, and which of them do they think will present a difficulty? The House is entitled to know that.
	We have in the recent past witnessed the Prime Minister going through all sorts of strange permutations and convolutions about Britishness. He tells us that there are commissions looking into Britishness, and that he wants to examine it closely and to come up with all sorts of recommendations, but our criminal justice system is one of the foundations and defining matters of our national life. That is not to say that it is perfect, but it is certainly distinctive and the Government—quite apart from my party—appear to be committed to its protection. I fail to see how the Government will do that with the treaty in its present form and the opt-ins provided.
	This afternoon, the Government have shown a capacity to trash just about every institution they come up against. They are certainly treating the criminal justice system and the rule of law in this country with contempt, and they are treating Parliament in the same way by curtailing debate.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has won many awards for his parliamentary skill and ability. Sadly however, he concentrated in his speech today not on the substance of the justice and home affairs agenda, but on what I was going to call his Euroscepticism although I should apologise for calling him that because we now know that he is half French—I should, perhaps, now say that he has been half a Eurosceptic in his arguments.
	In contrast, the Home Secretary made an excellent speech in which she rightly set out the Government's commitment to further co-operation with EU partners on the justice and home affairs agenda. I commend her on what she has done, and I commend to the House the Home Affairs Committee report entitled, "Justice and Home Affairs Issues at European Union Level", which was published on 11 October last year and which is tagged to the motion before the House. I intend to speak about the report and its influence on the Government's decision to accept the treaty and to put its main provisions before the House. The report was written before my time as the Committee's Chairman, but I know that its members, some of whom were present during the earlier part of the debate, were keen to ensure that although it is called the Home Affairs Committee, it carefully examined the European dimension.
	The Committee examined the following issues: justice, of course; practical co-operation between member states; mutual recognition, including the development of minimum standards across the whole of the EU; the harmonisation of the criminal justice systems; the processes of decision making and whether problems are driven by third pillar procedures; the significance of a trend towards internal agreements between informal groups of member states outside the EU framework; and the current developments in common border controls and visa arrangements.
	International crime, people trafficking, migration issues and other policing issues are, as the Home Secretary and others have told the House, no longer issues just for internal domestic consumption, and it would be very foolish to treat them as such. The Home Affairs Committee has been very clear in its recognition that we cannot keep our country safe and fight organised crime and terrorism without working closely with our neighbours. It said that in some cases not enough had been done to ensure a better level of co-operation. The treaty of Lisbon, and its commitment to those principles that I have outlined, is therefore extremely welcome.

William Cash: Many people would agree that a good idea lies behind international co-operation, but why would the right hon. Gentleman especially single out that legal entity called the European Union when the problems that arise, as he has so aptly described them, are relevant to a global problem? Why does he just mention the European Union, particularly given the legal systems involved? For example, as I pointed out earlier, the political control over judges is greater in some European countries than it is over here.

Keith Vaz: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and his views, but he must understand that although we obviously have to go beyond the European Union to deal with issues such as international crime, human trafficking and terrorism, we need to begin with our partners. The strength of our relationship with our EU partners strengthens our position in dealing with these issues with the rest of the world.
	The Committee felt strongly—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that the Government must control some areas of the decision-making process on the justice and home affairs agenda. I am glad that the treaty strengthens the opt-out and thus recognises the concerns expressed during our deliberations in producing this report. In our view, policy initiatives at EU level should be pursued only if there is solid evidence that they are likely to make a practical difference to the effectiveness with which common challenges facing EU member states in the JHA field can be tackled.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman may recall giving evidence to the European Reform Forum on the question of democracy, accountability and transparency in the EU. He agreed that there was a democratic deficit in the EU and that the transfer of more and more law-making functions to the Commission and the European Parliament was not the answer to the democratic deficit, yet he agrees with this treaty, which provides for a substantial transfer of law-making powers from democratic Parliaments in the member states to the institutions of the European Community. He has said that the European Union cannot be a democracy. This treaty is a transfer from democracy to something that is not a democracy, so how will he address that problem?

Keith Vaz: I remember giving evidence to the hon. Gentleman's forum with great pleasure. Nothing that I have said today in any way contradicts what I said before his forum. Of course we have to pool our thoughts, resources and arrangements to ensure that we are more effective. That is what being a member of the European Union is all about and that is what we signed up to in the Maastricht treaty and in all the treaties to which Governments, whether Conservative or Labour, have been a party. The fact remains that it is only through co-operation that we will make progress, but there has to be absolute and proper scrutiny of what is happening—and that is what is happening in this Committee stage.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my right hon. Friend ever visited the state of Cameroon, two thirds of which is French-speaking and one third English-speaking? Its judges cannot agree on how they should record their judgments. The English-speaking tradition requires written judgments and the French one requires oral judgments. I am sure that that is not an example of the sort of problem that we shall encounter, but one does wonder.

Keith Vaz: Only someone with the distinguished experience and ability of my hon. Friend could suggest that the House should compare Cameroon to the European Union— [ Interruption. ] I do not think that that is a legitimate comparison, but I respect my hon. Friend's views and her wonderful pronunciation of French.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of increased co-operation. We are in favour of co-operation, but that is provided for under the international arrangements that already exist. These proposals would mean a transfer from co-operation to, dare I say it, coercion, subject to qualified majority voting and the European Court, under the European Union. This is a completely different system, and it is not co-operation.

Keith Vaz: If the hon. Gentleman had stopped at the word "co-operation" and not gone on to "coercion", he would have taken the House with him. The fact is that we have to have co-operation when we deal with issues such as international crime, terrorism and human trafficking, as I shall explain.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of setting up a straw man. He seems to suggest that anyone who is against this treaty is against co-operation. We are in favour of co-operation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, but the real question that the Government have to answer is what advantage we gain from the new process over and above the co-operation that we already have, as the Home Secretary outlined at great length.

Keith Vaz: What we get is the ability to catch more criminals; to deal more effectively with human traffickers; and to use the European arrest warrant to bring more people to justice. I have no fear of the extension of qualified majority voting, because every analysis of it shows that Britain is almost always on the winning side and hardly ever on the losing side. I pay tribute to my former private secretary in the Europe department of the Foreign Office, who regularly used to bring me analysis of qualified majority voting that showed that Britain was on the winning side. I do not know why the Opposition do not accept that fact.

Ian Davidson: Surely it is easy to be on the winning side if one capitulates every time there is a row. Anybody can manage to be on the winning side by constantly changing sides. Surely that argument misses the point.

Keith Vaz: That may happen in Glasgow, but I do not think that it happens in the negotiations that go on in Brussels, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government. When Ministers represent the British Government they act in Britain's interests: they do not capitulate in order to please other countries. Ministers ensure that whatever is decided is best for Britain.
	Policing is an area in which co-operation will increase as a result of the treaty provisions. I am pleased to see that the treaty sets out a timetable to ensure the full establishment of Europol and allows member states to be involved in proper monitoring of the way in which it operates.
	I ask the Home Secretary, who is in deep conversation with the Minister for Borders and Immigration about very important matters, to what extent she regards such monitoring as enabling Parliament to be part of the decision-making process. I wonder whether the Minister for Europe will say, when he responds to the debate, whether he is happy with the timetable for Europol or whether he expects and wishes the timetable to be accelerated. The proper and effective operation of Europol is in everyone's interests, and I hope that he will also confirm that, if not the Select Committee on Home Affairs—I am not trying to empire-build—the whole of Parliament can be involved in the process.

Tony Baldry: Does the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee agree that, although Europol might be a good initiative, practically none of his constituents, nor any of mine, have heard of Europol or what it does? This is becoming a secret-garden debate. If we had had a referendum on the issue, there would have been an opportunity at least to ensure that everyone understood the issues—good or bad—in the treaty.

Keith Vaz: Most of my constituents might not have heard of Europol, because they have never come to the attention of Europol, and therefore they have not been involved in any serious crime that would result in their being asked to visit or being visited by Europol. If the hon. Gentleman is saying, "Let us go out there and explain the institutions of the European Union to the people of Britain. Let us have a proper debate about our role in the EU," I am with him absolutely. That is what the Government have been doing for the past 10 years, despite the attacks that they constantly receive in the tabloid press about their good work in Europe.
	The Select Committee argued quite strongly that the European borders agency, Frontex, which is based in Warsaw, had untapped potential and that it needed proper resources if its efforts were not to be diverted into emergency operations. In June last year, there was a major Frontex operation to tackle illegal immigration from Moldova. At least 11 countries, including Britain, were involved in the operation, which resulted in the detection of at least 109 illegal border movements. That demonstrates the benefit of organisations such as Frontex and the importance of co-operation with our European partners.
	I would be grateful to the Minister if he told the House in his winding-up speech what the reform treaty will mean for Frontex. Although separate from the EU, it is vital for European protection. The UK asked to opt in to Frontex, despite some objections that, to participate in Frontex, it was necessary to be part of the Schengen group of countries. I ask that Parliament and, indeed, the Select Committee be kept informed of all such developments, and we particularly welcome the opt-in that has been negotiated.
	During the Home Secretary's speech, I alluded to the evidence given by Sir Stephen Lander, the chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, about the importance of the work that SOCA was undertaking in the EU, particularly the importance of co-operation in dealing with drug traffickers and those who are involved in human trafficking. It is important that we hear from the Minister what further steps he will take to use the justice and home affairs agenda to ensure that SOCA can work properly and adequately with other such organisations in EU countries.
	On data protection, we heard from the Home Secretary about the need to share information. Indeed, when the Select Committee recently visited Washington, we saw the effects of the data sharing between EU countries and the fact that the data were also shared with the United States of America—in particular, passenger name records were used to monitor those who were involved in undesirable activities entering the United States. The Home Secretary gave me an assurance quite strongly that she had brought to the attention of European colleagues the need to protect those data, and I very much hope that that is at the forefront of her consideration. If we share data with European partners and if they share data with us, it is important that those data are protected. If they are not protected, we will have serious problems.
	I mentioned human trafficking; the Committee is about to start a major inquiry into human trafficking. We will go to Kiev, Moscow and probably Lithuania to consider the issue of the EU's external borders. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke of co-operation with countries beyond the EU. There is a bigger world outside; why are we always concerned with the EU? That is what he always says so eloquently in debates such as this. We do need the co-operation of countries outside the EU if we are to make any impact on those involved in what everyone regards as a modern form of slavery. We recently debated human trafficking in this House, and many right hon. and hon. Members took part. It is important that we ensure co-operation.
	The treaty deals with many of the same issues that the Committee highlighted in its report last year. I am pleased with the importance given to co-operation in policing, crime detection and immigration and asylum. They are important issues. I had the privilege of being at the Tampere European Council in 1999, when the process began—for the first time, the European Union considered justice and home affairs—and I watched with great interest and delight as after Tampere came The Hague programme and finally The Hague 2, which ensures that we deal seriously with justice and home affairs. Britain is at the heart of the JHA agenda because of the work of Ministers and officials over the past 10 years and more. I commend the action taken, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Government motion.

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), both because of his interest in European matters over many years and because of his role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
	Globalisation clearly involves the globalisation not merely of trade but of crime. The communications revolution ensures that, as does ease of transport. Sometimes I think that Members of this House, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, have not caught up with public opinion on the issue. A recent Eurobarometer opinion poll found that 70 per cent. of British people believe that decisions on terrorism, for example, should be taken jointly with our EU partners. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we recently debated precisely that issue in the context of the Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention. The trafficking of men, women and children is a new form of slavery by debt bondage and an outrage against all civilised values. It is an entirely international trade on which the utmost international co-operation is required if it is to be tackled effectively. That includes early ratification of the anti-trafficking convention.
	Trafficking is possibly only the most shocking of the crimes now committed by international organised crime, which include drug-running, gunrunning and terrorism grounded in international networks such as al-Qaeda. Tackling such crimes requires intense and regular co-operation, which requires, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) rightly pointed out, a legal basis in any country grounded in the rule of law, as ours is. The treaty amending previous provisions on the matter will provide that basis.
	The Home Secretary pointed out past successes of the European arrest warrant, such as the rapid arrest and extradition from Italy of Osman Hussain. I note that the Centre for European Reform recently reported that extradition times between member states have been reduced from an average of nine months to just 43 days as a result of the European arrest warrant. I was proud to vote in favour of that measure when it came before the European Parliament during my time as an MEP, and I was shocked to see that the Conservative MEPs all voted against it.
	Another example of successful co-operation was Operation Koala, which was co-ordinated by Europol and Eurojust. The status of both those bodies will be clarified under the treaty. Officers arrested 93 people in connection with a case of pretty revolting paedophilia—about half of them were living in Britain, and many of those were clearly a danger to our fellow citizens and our children—and identified 23 victims, all girls. That was a real achievement for EU co-operation. How can the Conservatives oppose the effective work of such bodies when those bodies themselves want to be grounded in a proper legal basis?

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can attempt to explain that.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I take him back to the European arrest warrant for a moment? I recollect that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches expressed considerable concern over our extradition arrangements with the United States of America because of the lack of need to show a prima facie case. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the fact that the same thing applies to the European arrest warrant does not trouble him at all? He will know my views from what I said earlier. There may be justification for an arrest warrant Surely the underlying principles are exactly the same.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the underlying principles are exactly the same. First, the European arrest warrant is entirely reciprocal. One of the major problems with our current extradition arrangements with the United States is that they bear all the hallmarks of an uneven treaty. They apply far more onerously to us than to the United States. The second fundamental difference, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that we have joint political arrangements within the European Union for determining these matters, including ongoing scrutiny, not just in this place and other national Parliaments, but in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Therefore the two matters are entirely different.

William Cash: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I should like to give way, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) knows, because we have sparred on these issues and so many others, but I shall make a little progress first.
	Chapter 3 of the Lisbon treaty sets out the provisions on judicial co-operation. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) highlighted the practical benefits that that will bring on civil matters—for example, for businesses. We are far more integrated than we ever were in terms of trade, so it is enormously beneficial to be able to operate a small claims court and follow through more easily on matters such as the settlement of debts. The rights of British citizens should not end at our frontiers, but extend beyond into the judicial space of our partners.
	Chapter 4 deals with judicial co-operation on criminal matters. One of the things that Conservative Members may forget is that more than 750,000 of our fellow citizens choose to exercise their right under the treaties to live in other EU member states. It is surely right that we should look out for and be concerned about their rights.
	The House will remember the hue and cry over the British plane spotters arrested in Greece in 2001 on suspicion of spying. I remember that a number of Conservative Members became extremely exercised about the matter, including even the hon. Member for Stone. In such cases EU-guaranteed rights for people to know the charges against them in order to be able to rebut them would be important, yet attempts to get guaranteed rights across the EU for defendants have repeatedly foundered in the Council of Ministers for more than three years.
	I find the position of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) extraordinary. He seems to be arguing that the Conservatives want us to maintain our right to have lower standards of protection for defendants than Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece or any other member state. That is the logic of his position.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. He did not listen to the exchange between myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), or he did not take it in. I pointed out clearly that the difficulty arose not in terms of the areas that would remain entirely domestic, but where there was a perceived need by the European Union to intrude into areas where criminal process had a cross-border nature. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) should examine that carefully, because it is possible that we could end up with lower standards than we have at present.

Christopher Huhne: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman during his exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I simply do not see the practical impact of what he is talking about. I shall come to what I am afraid I would describe as the edifice of paranoia that he is attempting to establish about the proposals in the treaty.
	However, the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that justice and home affairs is a highly sensitive area; that is why it is so important to ensure real safeguards of subsidiarity. As the hon. Gentleman was painting a picture in which we were about to be overrun by people who did not care about democracy, the rule of law or rights for defendants—that is his essential implication about our partners in the European Union—I was astonished that he entirely disregarded what is in the treaty to ensure real safeguards of subsidiarity, and the important general guarantees that enable member states to co-operate but do not impose intrusions from Brussels or Luxembourg.
	For example, the Lisbon treaty spells out that the European Union
	"shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities".
	Such a provision is already contained in article 6 of the treaty on the European Union:
	"The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States".
	In the 2004 and 2007 texts, that is expanded to respect for state provision to maintain internal law, order and national security. In addition, and of particular importance to the Government, as we have heard, the Lisbon treaty adds:
	"In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State."
	By the way, that is the first time that such a provision has appeared, and it represents a fundamental difference from the constitutional treaty. Indeed, article 33 of the treaty on the European Union states that the provision on police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters
	"shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security."
	We have already heard concerns about the creep possibly introduced by the judgments of the European Court.

James Clappison: In view of the praise that the hon. Gentleman is lavishing on the judicial and home affairs chapter of the treaty, will he say whether it will be Liberal Democrat policy to sign up to that chapter?

Christopher Huhne: I am very happy to say that we want to co-operate with our partners on matters for which there would be a clear, practical effect in tackling international crime such as terrorism, drug-running and gunrunning. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman and his friends on the Conservative Benches fail to see that point.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Huhne: Let me make a bit of further progress and I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
	Article 35 of the treaty on the European Union states,
	"the Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security".
	That brings me to some of the differences between the Lisbon and constitutional treaties; they are particularly important in the area of justice and home affairs. Open Europe has said that, given the fact that 10 of the 250 proposals are different, 96 per cent. of the Lisbon treaty is the same as the constitution. However, a  Nature article in 2005 reported the discovery that 96 per cent. of the DNA of all of us in the Chamber is the same as that of a chimpanzee; we would surely agree that the differences between us and chimpanzees are more significant than the similarities.
	In fact, there seem to be several very important differences between the JHA provisions in the constitution and in the Lisbon treaty. First, there is specific language to enable some member states to proceed with measures on police and judicial co-operation while others do not participate. Secondly, under protocol 20 there is an extension of the UK's 1997 opt-out on JHA to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation. The significance of that in the context of previous decisions in the European Union is extraordinary, and I am not sure that Members have fully appreciated it. In effect, our EU partners have allowed us to join the club on justice and home affairs under the condition that we can unilaterally decide which rules we want to apply and which we do not. This is à la carte Europe, not for any other member state, but for Britain, and it is new in the Lisbon treaty—it was not in the constitutional treaty. Obligations placed on other member states will be sustained, yet we will be free to opt out of any such obligations that might be imposed on us.
	In painting his alarming picture of being overrun by people who do not care about civil liberties, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raises the question of what happens if we do decide to opt in to justice and home affairs matters—as I very much hope that we will, given the internationalisation of so many of the problems that we face. Are we still able to use the emergency brake that sends an issue to the European Council? Yes, indeed we are. It is still possible for us to go to the European Council, although the hon. Gentleman did not touch on that at all. It is deeply significant that article 9B(4) of the Lisbon treaty—I hope that Conservative Members will look at it—deals with what happens when such matters are referred to the European Council. It explicitly states that, except where the treaties so provide, the European Council will determine those matters "by consensus". In legal terms, that means that every single participant in the European Council has a national veto over what will be determined there. The entire picture that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield painted of our being completely defenceless if we make the mistake of going ahead and participating in any of these areas—

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right that I did not touch on that—I probably should have done, but it was rather a question of trying to bring my remarks to an end because of the number of interventions I had taken on the emergency brake. Let me point out to him that nothing in the wording on the emergency brake requires the Council to consider such representations; indeed, the wording makes it explicit that it is discretionary.

Christopher Huhne: It is absolutely clear in the treaty—I have just given the article reference—that the European Council will discuss the matter and determine it "by consensus". The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to take on board the extraordinary impact of that, despite the fact that he is half French. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East, who suggested that because the hon. Gentleman was half French he was only allowed to be half Eurosceptic, seems not to realise the history of these matters, given that General de Gaulle was so keen on the Luxembourg compromise, the empty chair policy and the national veto. For the first time since the treaty of Rome, this treaty introduces formally into law a commitment to proceed on the basis of consensus, not an informal understanding that we will not proceed if there is a lack of consensus. In other words, the Luxembourg compromise championed by General de Gaulle has been inscribed in EU law.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Huhne: Happily—how could I not give way to the hon. Gentleman?

William Cash: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is being a little over-enthusiastic. Does he not recall that during cross-examination by the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister for Europe suggested that the whole of the JHA measures had an emergency brake? Does he not accept that the reform treaty makes no provision whatsoever for an emergency brake in respect of the other matters dealt with under paragraph 4?

Christopher Huhne: I believe that the emergency brake will apply across the board. That certainly appears to be the legal opinion according to what I have seen, although I do not know what the Minister said in Committee. On the sensitive matters that we are discussing, there is no doubt that the emergency brake applies, that the European Council position is as I have described and that for the first time in any EU text it is made clear that the European Council will proceed by unanimity.
	Another important difference is that the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that allow legislation to be adopted on passports, identity cards and residence permits have moved from the citizenship part of the treaty to the immigration part. That means that the UK can opt out, as can Denmark and Ireland. That is an important part of the case that the Liberal Democrats have sought to argue—the Lisbon treaty is fundamentally different from the constitutional treaty in terms of the safeguards that are provided.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that although the provisions have been moved at the moment, there is a danger that they might be moved back again? Is that not something that we have seen the EU do before? For example, Britain was given an opt-out on the social chapter one minute, only for the EU suddenly to decide to implement limits on working hours under health and safety regulations the next.

Christopher Huhne: I can see that the paranoia that has infected the Conservative Front Benchers is creeping backwards. I do not recognise that as the real world. When I listen to the descriptions of the workings of the EU that come from those on the Conservative Benches, they bear no resemblance whatsoever to the institutions with which I was involved for six years as an MEP. I urge Conservative Members to use the allowances so generously supplied by this House to get on a Eurostar, visit Brussels and find out what the case is for themselves.

John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that the Government knew perfectly well that the scope of health and safety in the EU covered those measures that were then implemented? That was part of the original treaty and there was no question that the EU in any sense misled Britain or those who had negotiated the deal.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that extremely helpful intervention. His recollection is the same as mine.
	I have a question for the Minister. In availing ourselves of those opt-ins and opt-outs, as I hope that we will, what parliamentary scrutiny will that involve in this House? On a formal level, will the Government be able to opt in or opt out merely through statutory instruments? That would probably not be an appropriate matter for secondary legislation. Should there not be a commitment at least to a proper debate on the Floor of the House or even to use primary legislation to make the change?
	I hope that the new Government Front-Bench team will dust off some of the proposals made by the Modernisation Committee—and some of the evidence that it was given—about how we can improve the way in which our Ministers are scrutinised when they go to the Council of Ministers, as the Danish Folketing or the Finnish Eduskunta have done. That would give enormous reassurance to the people of this country that we will not have to put up with secret decisions such as those that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has attempted to portray as a great threat to our national life.

David Heath: My hon. Friend is raising an important point about the parliamentary scrutiny of any opt-in arrangements. If such scrutiny were not effective, we would be building the use of royal prerogative on top of a previous use of the royal prerogative. As the Government are committed to reviewing use of the royal prerogative in any case, and to providing proper parliamentary scrutiny, it would be perverse if any potential opt-in was not properly scrutinised in this place.

Christopher Huhne: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I simply reiterate that many of the unfounded fears about the EU would be put right if this House did a much more effective job of scrutinising our Ministers when they represent us in the Council of Ministers. Ideally, we would do that beforehand, as happens with the Danish Folketing.
	The Conservatives have pressed for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but the problem with that is that the treaty allows us to incorporate its provisions or not, as we see fit. I can imagine that that was not an easy concession for Ministers to obtain. It is frankly breathtaking for the Conservatives to say that this country will accept that concession while retaining the right to reject the whole treaty that our partners wished to implement without opt-ins or opt-outs. In my experience, no business negotiation could conceivably succeed on that basis, and no business would want to bother negotiating with anyone who set out such a position. There has to be give and take.
	All in all, we on these Benches hope that the new Lisbon treaty will prove to be a useful way to tackle the increasing globalisation of crime and to extend the rights of our citizens, wherever they choose to live in the EU. We hope too that it will extend the rights of the millions of people who visit other member states in the course of their holidays. However, there can be no doubt that the provisions in the Lisbon treaty are substantially different from those in the constitutional treaty, and that they allow the UK a far greater ability to pick and mix than we enjoyed before. That is the main reason why we believe that it would be a mistake to unpick the arrangements, and why we urge that the House support the Government motion.

Michael Connarty: It is a joy indeed to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). He claims to have DNA that is somewhat similar to what we on the Labour Benches have, although I think that it is slightly weaker. However, we accept what he says, as he will be joining us in the Lobby on the Bill.
	I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh because he echoed the questions that I have been raising with the Government for some months. Those questions have to do with the procedures that will allow this Parliament to be involved in the opt-in processes, whereby matters to which we have signed up already and which come under the jurisdiction of our courts will be transposed to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I am also concerned about the procedures that will allow the House to be involved in dealing with matters to do with the proposed orange and yellow cards, and with the implementation of the passerelle clauses. The passerelle clauses relate to various matters, including those connected with foreign policy.
	I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have focused on the procedures involved, and I hope that the main Opposition party is thinking about them too. I am Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and my Committee has agreed, along with the Public Administration Committee, to consider seeking a resolution from the Government that would deal with the matters that I have set out. That resolution would be additional to this Bill, and I hope that it would formalise and make concrete and substantial Parliament's involvement in each of the procedures. In that fashion, the way that matters are handled would not be left to the Government alone.
	The people who read our debates are sometimes more aware of our prejudices than the substance of our discussions. It is important, therefore, that we keep it in mind that the motion makes it clear that we are talking about
	"justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy",
	as well as matters relating to "fighting cross-border crime". People will want to know what we want to do in those areas, and whether the reform treaty will help us to perform better. They will not be so interested in our general prejudices about how someone might have moved away from the positions that he or she took in the European Convention, or about how opt-out agreements were reached—for example, whether they came with or without red lines, and what the substance of those red lines was. My Committee has reported on all those matters and we stick by the positions that we took, but people outside will want to know what the House thinks about them.
	Two matters underpin—although they might undermine—the House's approach to the subjects being debated. First, there is no clear procedure that allows Parliament to get involved in or to control the opt-in process. The possibility remains that the process could be handled in secret by the Council of Ministers, although I hope that that does not happen.
	My Committee has examined the conclusions from past Council meetings, to determine how they were written and where decisions came from. In a report that we are issuing this week, the Committee says that the Council is both secretive and eccentric. It is important that the process involved is neither of those things: it must be characterised by openness and clarity, and all decisions taken must be accountable to this House.
	The second thing that underpins—or undermines—our approach to these matters is that we would not retain the status quo if, for some reason, we decided not to opt in on any given matter. My Committee was concerned about that, and some might say that it is ridiculous: surely, if we do not want to go along with the new Community method established in the reform treaty, we should be able to opt out of it. In contrast, Denmark was not asked to opt out because it has a protocol that means that it can keep its existing arrangement if it does not want to opt into the new arrangements—that is, with the Commission in charge and the ECJ providing the final judgments—established by the reform treaty process. As a result of the protocol, the Danish Government and courts will retain their powers of judgment and control. It is clear, therefore, that the Danish protocol allows that country to underpin—and probably undermine—a lot of our concerns about how the reform treaty will pan out.

Dominic Grieve: I read the report from the European Scrutiny Committee, and much of it made tremendous sense. Has the hon. Gentleman received any enlightenment from the Government as to why they did not seek an opt-out arrangement similar to that enjoyed by the Danish Government? Such an opt-out would go a long way towards resolving some of the anxieties that I expressed in my speech.

Michael Connarty: I believe that the explanation was that we secured a better deal than Denmark did. That was the Government's assessment and they have stuck by it in their arguments, although I suggest that Denmark was probably allowed to retain its opt-out because it is a small country that does not make a significant dent in the general conduct of Community affairs. In contrast, the UK is a large country and a big player in the EU. If we had secured a similar opt-out, other countries might have followed us and demanded opt-outs of their own—something that happened when Poland followed our lead on the charter of fundamental rights. Even so, I believe that the reform treaty deserves our support, as long as the proper procedures are put in place so that Parliament can discuss each transfer of power and opt-in.
	I was slightly late for this evening's debate because I was hosting the launch of the Law Society's guide to the treaty of Lisbon. The guide is not prejudiced in any way, but offers a clear elucidation of what the treaty contains. It gives good advice to the legal profession about how the treaty will help those who practise in the criminal, civil and commercial law. It will simplify the legal code, and allow legal professionals to do their business in Europe on behalf of this country's people and companies much more effectively. I was pleased to be asked to host the launch event this evening.
	I also attended the launch of an organisation called BlueBlindFold, which was set up by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who chairs the all-party group on human trafficking. The organisation makes it clear that trafficking is happening in this country. Whether we like it or not, it is a problem in every constituency, and the people of this country want to know whether the treaty will strengthen our working relationship with the rest of Europe so that we can deal with it. I believe that it does.
	I was pleased to be at both the events that I have described, although they meant that I missed the speech by the Home Secretary. However, I have some of her briefing notes and, despite my earlier absence, I shall respond to them now.
	In its third report of 2007-08, the European Scrutiny Committee made clear its concern that the move to QMV and the jurisdiction of the Commission and the ECJ would lead to the loss of control over criminal justice unless the right to opt in was maintained. We also stated that the UK should retain its right to opt out, as I have said. The Home Office briefing stated:
	"The Lisbon Treaty would make qualified majority voting apply to Justice and Home Affairs (things like policing, judicial systems and control of borders). But decisions taken will not affect the UK unless we believe that such co-operation is in our national interest."
	It is for precisely that reason that there must be some sort of debate on the Floor of the House every time the Government decide to take part in that co-operation. They will have to convince the House that such co-operation is in our national interest, and it is possible that they will be able to do so. However, I do not want the Government to be able to avoid that responsibility: I do not want them to operate off the radar, as that would give people the idea that they have something to lose and that they are not willing to tell us all about what is going on.
	The Home Office briefing also states:
	"The Lisbon Treaty allows for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor."
	Again and again, the European Scrutiny Committee has made it clear that we would not approve of that for the UK. So far Ministers have been on our side, and we have an opt-in over that possibility. We can prevent the European public prosecutor from having a role in the UK, but we do not yet know what the consequences will be of opting out from that arrangement. What other relationships with the European public prosecutor's office will we have to give up? We may find that we lose out on things because of the opt-in, or the opt-out.

William Cash: I would like to home in on the question of the European public prosecutor as an example. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I certainly want debate on such matters, but what troubles me is the substance of the changes relating to dual criminality, the burden of proof, the judicial process and political interference in the judicial process. It is those substantial questions that trouble me—not exclusively the arcane arguments about opting in or out.

Michael Connarty: Perhaps I have been told that I use arcane arguments. I do not remember being accused of that; I am usually told that I am blunt and in your face.

Rob Marris: Yeah, that's right.

Michael Connarty: Thank you. Where I come from, that is called a compliment, on the basis that we in the industrial heartlands of Lanarkshire are not shrinking violets.
	However, the substance of the treaty is the matter of the debate, not questions of opting in or out. What does a proposal mean, what does it bring with it and do we want it? Does it give us an advantage and lead to better co-operation? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, asked, does it give us the power to catch more criminals and to defend our people better? On balance, I would say that a lot of things in the treaty do so.
	I have some examples from the Law Society guide. It states:
	"EU criminal justice policy is built on police and judicial cooperation; minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences, and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crimes with a cross-border dimension; and the organisation of Europol and Eurojust."
	Those changes are welcomed. That is the view of that profession in its defence of people, companies and organisations in the UK. The guide says:
	"The Treaty reinforces and consolidates progress in this area to date. It underlines the principle of mutual recognition, allowing a court in one EU country to recognise and enforce a criminal conviction from another."
	That is something to be welcomed; the society is correct in that assessment. On criminal law, it points out:
	"Under the treaty the EU is able to legislate to influence national law in two circumstances:
	1) serious crime with a cross-border dimension—e.g. drug-trafficking, terrorism and organised crime.
	2) Where the law has already been harmonised in all EU countries."
	With regard to judicial co-operation, there is an intention to remove the veto, but
	"the UK reserves the right to opt in on a case by case basis."
	That may remove the deadlock that existed in this area.
	All those aspects must be applauded with regard to co-operation and the results that they will bring. On police co-operation, the guide states that the treaty
	"provides for cooperation for all police and specialised law enforcement agencies. That could impact upon the availability and permissibility of evidence in cross-border cases."
	The Law Society does not see that as a negative matter. On civil justice and family law, it states that there is a
	"Greater impetus for more local cooperation in civil law with cross-border issues. The UK can opt out of these provisions."
	In family law,
	"National Governments will continue to wield their veto",
	which I think people will welcome. The Law Society has taken an objective, professional view of the matter, not a politician's view, as it pointed out to me, and it has welcomed the changes.
	We must consider other areas that should be welcomed. For example, we recently saw a report from the Commission to the Council on the application of the directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. I have to say that the UK did not come out well, although it was robustly defended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has just joined us. The report criticised us, and as someone who has had to deal with families who are justifiably seeking asylum, who had been treated less than humanely by this Government, particularly when they were locked up in Dungavel, I welcome such co-operation, which ensures standards for those of all nations. The report says:
	"Minor difficulties were detected with regard to the application of the Directive in time."
	The UK is one of the countries criticised. The report also states that
	"serious problems exist in terms of the applicability of the Directive in all premises hosting asylum seekers."
	Sadly, the UK is again mentioned. The report says that asylum seekers are duly informed by the UK in proper time, but that member states do not always comply with the documentation deadline, and once again, the UK is mentioned. The report continues:
	"Certain deficiencies are noted regarding the possibility of appeals against certain negative decisions."
	When it comes to a lack of appeals, sadly, the UK is named again.
	I welcome the notion of cross-border, EU-wide policing and reporting. We had a debate in this place on common asylum policy, and in time we may choose the method of compulsion to ensure that other countries come into line with our standards. However, people who have not been treated properly in other countries often end up here. That is the problem. If they are not getting justice elsewhere in the EU, they come to the UK. We saw that with the recent floods of people who came in when there was much trouble in the world, particularly in the Balkans and Africa.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is not one of the problems that Britain is a country targeted by people emigrating from outside the EU? I recently visited Finland with the European Scrutiny Committee, and the Finnish said that no one wants to go there because it is too cold and the language is impossible. Some countries will be voting on asylum law that will not affect them but will affect us, and is not that a problem, too?

Michael Connarty: People have many reasons for not going to other countries, and dealing with a language as difficult as Finnish will certainly be one. An interesting point—it is not related to asylum—was made to me by the Hungarian Foreign Secretary last week. There are actually more UK residents living and working in Hungary than there are Hungarian residents living and working in the UK. People have different reasons for travelling to other countries, but with regard to asylum, if people are not treated adequately and properly in a uniform manner throughout Europe, they will gravitate towards countries such as the UK. Despite criticisms, I still think that the UK has one of the most open and compassionate views of the rights of citizens to flee from terror and from places where their life is under threat.
	I turn to the agenda that is being advanced in this field under the Slovenian presidency. The train is moving, and if we do not want be on it, we had better get off it quickly. Slovenia is a country of 2 million people, and its presidency is taking this area of responsibility seriously. During the next six months, it will have to work on these matters and take decisions on behalf of everyone. Should passenger name records be passed on to other countries, including the United States? What is the European critical infrastructure, and how should it be protected and defended from terrorism? How should we deal with Europol? Europol will not go forward because of the treaty—it will do so anyway.
	What is Europol? I have visited Europol and was impressed by it. Europol members travel out of their own jurisdictions and work on our behalf in an information passing and gathering role. Sadly, they do not come down the street to arrest people, but they provide information that allows the local police to recognise individuals. There are questions about Europol's status. Should it have certain immunities? Should it be subject to conditions regarding an EU or EC jurisdiction, rather than to a co-operative arrangement between countries?
	We have mentioned Eurojust. That is covered by the returns directive, which allows us to send people back to countries when they are claiming asylum falsely. It is important that that matter is processed, and that it is dealt with under the current presidency. The Justice and Home Affairs Council has considered the matter of e-justice three times, and I hope that people will be able to use an e-justice portal to get justice in Europe. There will also be future group work on justice to consider.
	All those things will be dealt with under the Slovenian presidency during the next six months, and we must realise that they are good for Europe and good for the UK. We should take advantage of what comes out of that presidency under the reform treaty. Slovenia is already committed to the treaty, as are most countries in Europe, and we should be with them. Having doubts about the opt-in question, or the fact that we lost some of the arguments in the convention, is not a good enough reason to argue against the treaty.
	The paper that we considered in April 2007 on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters was clearly about making progress through pooling our resources sensibly. We should approve of that. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned Europol, and I have been examining some of its successes. Our countries have problems with counterfeiting. Operation Diabolo, an example of Europol-guided police co-operation, seized 135 million counterfeit cigarettes and other items. Europol should be commended for that sort of thing. A worldwide child sex offender's network was dismantled because of the information gathered, passed on, secured and used by the police in different jurisdictions in Europe. All that was achieved by Europol. Every constituent of every hon. Member wants such things to happen. The idea of being scared of Europol or perceiving it as a bogey man police force is nonsense. We should co-operate with and commend it.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says. However, he is classically demonstrating the success of the existing third pillar system. If he forgets for a moment his allegiances to his Front Benchers, does he not think that there is little necessity for merging the third and first pillar, or for the consequences, which he has identified, of the opt-in system and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? The existing system has delivered good co-operation and good results.

Michael Connarty: If the world could stand still, the hon. Gentleman would be right. However, the world cannot stand still, and Europe cannot stand still. The EU now has 27 members and completely new borders outside it. Moldova has been mentioned. I met the Moldovan delegation yesterday and there is a problem with Transnistria and the trafficking of not only people but drugs and other things that we do not want in our society into Ukraine and the rest of Europe. We are in a completely new Europe because we decided to enlarge for reasons of security, economic sense and general common sense. We have done it; we must deal with the world as we move forward.
	My Committee marked out treaty articles from 61 onwards as ones in which opt-ins occur again and again. However, we retain the emergency brake for criminal justice, although we do not for civil law. Article 61E contains a new and additional power, which was not in the constitutional treaty, for national Parliaments to determine whether we opt in or out. There are similar provisions on border checks, asylum and immigration. On judicial co-operation in civil matters, we can opt in but we do not have the red card apart from on family justice. It is important to perceive all those matters as benefits to the UK and the EU.
	The question for Conservative Members is how they will convince Europe that they are serious about being part of European progress. What has happened worries me. The intelligence of Opposition Front Benchers is obvious and they are doing a great job of arguing a case in which, in my view, they do not truly believe. They know that Europe must move forward and that people must make new alliances and decisions and give new weight to the preferences of each country.
	A question remains about whether the Government will give proper power to Parliament to determine opt-ins and opt-outs and whether we can perhaps send them back to argue, case by case, that we will opt in only if we get the same conditions as Denmark. I would like that argument to be presented. If the Conservative party ever came to power, I hope that its Front Benchers would perceive as reasonable the idea that we must advance but also try to hold on to what we have. Negotiations are all about that. Sometimes one gives up things to gain things. I will support the Government tonight and throughout our deliberations on the treaty because I believe that we will gain more than we lose.

Dominic Grieve: Is it not a problem that the treaty, like so many other aspects of the European Union, is a little like one's grandmother's mangle? Once one's shirt gets caught in it, there is only way through it.  [Interruption.] And it is quite painful. The absence of an ability to redirect the EU appears to incline the hon. Gentleman to say that one should simply surrender to it, even when it is going in a mistaken direction. That is why we take issue with the criminal justice articles in the Lisbon treaty.

Michael Connarty: I respect the Conservative Front-Bench position, but the hon. Gentleman is like the little boy who sticks his finger in a mangle to try to stop it. He will get a bust finger.

Rob Marris: There should be an emergency brake on the mangle.

Michael Connarty: I have said as much as I wish to say.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I serve. It has produced two influential reports on the treaty of Lisbon, which show, beyond dispute, that it is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the failed constitutional treaty. The reports also punctured the complacency with which the Government rely on their so-called red lines to protect our decision-making powers.
	I believe that the hon. Gentleman would also agree that the work of our Committee in looking upstream at the advancing tide of legislation has not diminished. Indeed, the volume of draft directives, decisions and legislation from Brussels is, if anything, increasing, especially on justice and home affairs. That gives the lie to the frequent assertion during the preparation of the treaties that they were essential for enlargement. The Government claimed often that, without the new constitution or the treaty, deadlock would ensue and we therefore had to move to a general system of qualified majority voting. Yet enlargement has proceeded not once, but twice. Twelve new countries have joined and no reduction in the volume of legislation is apparent.

Christopher Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is confusing proposals from the Commission, many of which can languish for years without being agreed, with directives that are agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament? With a much larger membership of the EU, we need a change in the decision-making arrangements precisely because proposals languish for years on end.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Many proposals languish for far too long after member states have decisively turned them down. One of the problems is that the Commission never gives up. It waits for its moment and then introduces failed proposals—in the case that we are considering, a failed constitution. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. Indeed, all the studies show that there has been no problem with essential decision making. The Minister did not advance a single instance of the inadequacy of current decision making. What proposals are being blocked by the existing mechanism?

Christopher Huhne: I gave an example in my speech of proposals for guaranteeing minimum standards for defendants throughout the EU. It has proved extremely difficult to reach an agreement on that and there are many other examples. Agreement has not been reached, especially on some tax proposals, for years.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman advances the remarkable proposition that, just because the Commission wants something, we should all agree to it. Of course, many Commissioners have many ambitions, but proposals must rightly undergo an exhaustive decision-making process in the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and, occasionally, the European Council. Just because one proposal advanced by the hon. Gentleman is facing some difficulty, that does not make the case for switching to an entirely new set of rules that would profoundly alter the rights not only of Parliament but of the people we represent, and in my view undermine our powers of self-government, which is the issue I want to talk about.
	In the case of justice and home affairs, we are dealing with a core responsibility that, with tax, is one of the two big duties of the House in guarding the liberties of the people we represent and examining carefully the definitions of the crimes for which they could be convicted, the penalties that they could face or whether they can be tried twice for the same offence, whether they can be tried in their absence and whether they can be extradited to other countries and, if so, under what circumstances. Those issues are the subject of scores of criminal justice Bills that come before the House. I have lost count of the number of such Bills since 1997, but I am sure it is well over 20.

Edward Garnier: There have been 35 Bills with the words "criminal justice" in them, but 64 Bills have emerged from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Like all good lawyers, my hon. and learned Friend has his finger on the statistics. That is an enormous volume of legislation, and quite right, too. That is why we are sent here. However, we are being invited to export those decision-making powers to people for whom by and large we do not vote, whom we cannot remove and who are unknown to the people we represent.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with interest. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) used the term "we" and talked about the advantage to "us" in getting European instruments through. However, one of the reasons they have been held up is surely that they are unpopular with some people, including me. He suggested that we needed ways to make it easier for the Commission to get its way, even if those who are perhaps less enthusiastic about the European Union do not like it. The hon. Gentleman said that we—meaning himself and the Commission—wanted to get things through, but many of us might not like them.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Commission has a monopoly of initiative in the field. It has always seemed strange to me that the Commission should be against most monopolies but in favour of that one. It wants to retain—indeed, under the treaty it has retained—the sole right to propose new laws. The Commission is unelected and usually comprises people who have been dis-elected—indeed, I can think of many Commissioners who lost their seats or resigned in murky and disagreeable circumstances. The system is almost anti-democratic. It is when future Commissioners are turned down by the electors in member states that they end up in that secret conclave of proto-legislators. I therefore object to the idea that we should defer to the judgments of a secretive body rather than to the people who are elected.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous. However, he is incorrect in saying that the Commission has a monopoly of proposing legislation, particularly in the field of justice and home affairs, where it is currently up to any member state to propose legislation. As a result, there have been enormous numbers of proposals. The Lisbon treaty restricts that power to a group of member states, to make the effort a bit more manageable. The right hon. Gentleman's point is therefore a little unfair to the Commission.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I concede to the hon. Gentleman that there are specific and comparatively minor provisions for member states to propose legislation. However, the great bulk of proposals that are grappled with weekly by the European Scrutiny Committee comprises those that are made by the Commission and which can be made only by the Commission. That also applies to any repeal. One of the reasons no legislation is ever repealed is that the Commission holds to the theory of the occupied field: once it has advanced into an area of policy, it is extremely reluctant to give up that occupation so it does not advance proposals for amendment or repeal of legislation, however out of date it may become.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is indeed being very generous. The rights of individuals in criminal procedure and the rights of victims of crime will come from the European Parliament and the European Council, not the Commission. On the back of that, I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's position on protecting the rights of individual British citizens—that is one of the major things we try to do in this Chamber—but as I said to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the system is a two-way street. I wish to do my bit through the treaty to protect the rights of our citizens who may be living in Hungary, Germany or wherever else and who may need afforded to them the additional protection that the minimum standards in the treaty will make available. The issue is not only the rights of individuals in the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom, but the rights of UK citizens who may fall foul of criminal justice systems in other member states.

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. My responsibility, as an elected Member of Parliament, is to look after the people I represent in my constituency. They know me, they have access to me and they either vote for me or reject me at elections. That is what they look to in a representative Chamber, but in no way do they regard the European Parliament in the same way.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Briefly, is it not a fact that if the Commission wanted to abandon any of the more bizarre proposals that have come from its imagination, it could not do so? Unlike under the British arrangements, there is no piece of machinery to enable the Commission to abandon a directive or a regulation. Indeed, many pieces of proposed legislation still on its list of programming are there simply because it does not know how to get rid of them.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is entirely right. Indeed, I have formally asked to be told the extent of the acquis communautaire—the accumulated body of laws and regulations to which we are subject—but nobody can tell me what it is. It is said by those who have tried to study it that it now runs to 170,000 pages, which no human being can comprehend. The acquis communautaire is largely beyond the reach of any democratic institution, because there is never any appetite in the European Union to withdraw, owing to the doctrine of the occupied field. Even the European Parliament is essentially powerless, and the Council of Ministers certainly is, as has been pointed out.

Patricia Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous. He is developing an argument, as did his Front-Bench colleagues, against the idea of legally binding minimum standards that result from co-operation between member states and with the European institutions, particularly in the protection of criminal suspects. However, does he not accept that we have been doing that for years through a different institution, namely the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights, which have long had the power and responsibility in that area? Indeed, in many cases the Court had to hear cases from the United Kingdom because they were not directly judiciable in the British courts. That system has set minimum standards across all the convention's signatory countries, rather than reducing them as his Front-Bench colleagues seemed to fear, thereby helping to protect and in many cases improve them for his and my constituents?

David Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Lady is overlooking the fact that we are talking not simply about this country adhering to a set of standards enacted or enumerated in a convention, but about transferring our powers to a law-making body. That is what makes the European Union different. It is not like NATO or the United Nations; it is a dynamic, law-making institution with an activist Court. When we export our powers, as we are being invited to, the process is to all intents and purposes irrevocable and will therefore bind future Parliaments.

Graham Brady: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that a Government who have fought so hard to bring in a 90-day period of detention without charge should be so keen apparently to give away powers to set minimum standards for the treatment of suspects?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend; he has made a devastating point. If I have time later, I want to give the House an instance relating to immigration and asylum in which the Government are in dispute with a European law that they have signed up to and cannot now get out of. They ought to be extremely cautious about their existing responsibilities, and still more so about those that we are now being invited to sign up to.
	We are talking here about the coercive power of the state, and the power to define punishments and to set the rights of the accused and of victims. It has always been regarded as particularly important to subject those powers to the highest standards of accountability and control. People obey the law because, ultimately, they obey their own laws. In an earlier intervention, the use of the pronouns "we" and "us" was mentioned. It is when laws become "their" laws—someone else's laws, imposed laws from another jurisdiction—that people feel less inhibited about disobeying them.

Christopher Huhne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is very charming.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he has been very generous. He was talking about where these laws come from, and about irrevocability. I have debated these matters with people of his persuasion over many years, and the point was often made that we could not leave the European Union, that our membership was irrevocable, that we had been locked in and that the key had been thrown away. That has always been nonsense. As we know, Greenland left the European Union. Will he concede that, in this treaty, for the very first time, there is a clear article admitting of the possibility of any member state seceding at any point? To talk about irrevocability is therefore, frankly, nonsense.

David Heathcoat-Amory: That is the feeblest argument of all. We are talking about a new treaty with awesome powers, yet the only argument that the hon. Gentleman can advance is that we could eventually leave the European Union. I want to create the right relationship between this country and our continental neighbours. The treaty will create the wrong one.
	I want quickly to move on to asylum and immigration. These, too, are matters of intense public interest. Only this week, the case of the murdered schoolmaster, Philip Lawrence, was resurrected. He was attacked and murdered by Mr. Chindamo, yet the conclusion of the High Court is that Mr. Chindamo cannot be extradited, not because of the merits of the case itself but because of the provisions of the EU free movement directive. What is particularly bizarre about this is that, in May 2006, the previous Prime Minister said in this Chamber:
	"it is now time that anybody who is convicted of an imprisonable offence and who is a foreign national is deported."—[ Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]
	He made that remark three days after the House had passed European economic area immigration regulations that specifically prevented the deportation of criminals to the EEA, so even the Government did not know what they were doing. They signed up to regulations that prevented the Prime Minister from doing something that, only days later, he promised to do. That illustrates the muddle that we have got into with the European Union. The Government do not even know what obligations they are subject to. This issue will be affected enormously by the treaty. The problem that I have just described arose under the existing treaty powers, but the provisions in the Lisbon treaty go much further.
	I believe that this will breed extremism. When incoming Governments—or even existing Governments who change their mind—cannot do anything, people outside the House say, "They're all in it together. Democracy is a sham. We vote for one lot and their promises, but it won't make any difference. They might take office, but they can't change anything. All the powers have been given away. The best we can hope for is that a slightly different lot of Members of the European Parliament will join a slightly different group in the Parliament and maybe at some future date the Commission might, in its wisdom, propose slight changes to the criminal justice regulations. And maybe the new majority in the European Parliament, which we only control a fraction of, will agree with the way I've voted." That stretches democracy to breaking point.
	The essential fallacy in this debate is that international co-operation depends on centralisation and common law-making. It does not. This country has had centuries of international co-operation. We belong to more international bodies than practically any other country. We sign up to conventions, we make alliances and we have bilateral agreements all over the world. The idea that, in order to tackle such common problems as crime, terrorism and child trafficking, we need permanently to export our powers from an accountable, democratic Chamber such as this to people we do not know and cannot remove is not just a fallacy but an abomination.
	I know that we are running out of time in this debate, and that we are going into Committee shortly, which might enable me to make a number of other points. Let me therefore end by saying that this subject is of core importance, and it is a great shame that we have only one day to discuss it. We are eliding the whole question of criminal justice and immigration, and I have not even mentioned police powers. The House should think carefully before endorsing a system of decision making that it might long regret. By any standards, these measures will involve a change of authority, but these powers ultimately belong not to this Chamber but to the people we represent.
	If there were a dispute over the validity of our red lines, or over the assurances that we have been getting from those on the Treasury Bench, the final arbiter would not be a court here or a Parliament that we elect but the European Court of Justice. The ECJ is not an impartial judge in these matters. It is enjoined under the new treaty, in new article 9, to practise "mutual sincere cooperation". If we were challenged on the powers or the validity of our red lines by the Commission, the Court that would decide the matter would be told to co-operate not with us but with the European Commission.
	That is almost the most worrying aspect of the whole thing. We are accepting—or, in my case, not accepting—the assurances that we get from those on the Treasury Bench about their red lines, but those who will decide any disputes will not be on the Treasury Bench or even in this House. They will be in a judicial body in another country, answerable to another body of law and mandated to practise "mutual sincere cooperation" with our legal opponents.
	I hope that I have said enough to illustrate my strong support for my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and I shall certainly be voting for our amendment this evening.

John Gummer: I am concerned to find myself supporting some of what the Government have said, because their record on criminal justice is appalling. On almost every occasion when we have debated such issues I have found myself voting on the liberal side—I do not mean Liberal Democrat, of course, as there is little as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats—to bring to the Government's notice the serious damage they are doing to the freedoms of the British people. In worrying about our freedoms, I reflect on how the Labour Government have damaged us in the criminal justice Bills that they have introduced.
	Crime, immigration and many other issues that we have spoken about today can no longer be dealt with as they have been hitherto. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that we need a new mechanism to guard the liberties of the people we represent. It is not just that I have an interest in what happens to my constituents as they travel so much more regularly today in the rest of the European Union; and it is not just that I want minimum standards, should my constituents be arrested for traffic or any other offences when they are driving in Slovenia, Slovakia, Vienna or elsewhere. Those reasons are important, yes, but my constituents are threatened by international crime, human trafficking, drug trafficking and other actions that cannot satisfactorily be dealt with under present arrangements.
	Let me draw the House's attention to one of the saddest moments in British history. The League of Nations agreed that all nations should accept a minimum enforceable standard. The incoming Government said, "Yes, that is a wonderful idea, but of course it should not apply in Britain because we are so good that we do not need the regulations." It seemed that the then Government could not understand that if they wanted others to reach similar standards, they had to accept the same restrictions as applied to others.
	I find it very difficult to accept the argument that because something is new, it must be wrong, and that even though circumstances have changed, we do not need to alter our present arrangements —[Interruption.] Yes, we are all for co-operation—as long as it does not reach the point where we commit ourselves to act together on issues in respect of which, without that commitment, we cannot act effectively.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

John Gummer: If I fail to give way to my hon. Friend, it is only because I have been admonished about the time I have available, but I will answer some of the points he raised.
	The truth is, of course, that we have to learn this the hard way. I negotiated in the European Union probably for longer than any other Minister—certainly almost as long because of my long involvement with agriculture and the environment, both of which were greatly subject to decisions in the EU. I have to say that I always found it harder to get one's way when debating and negotiating under the veto than when one was negotiating in circumstances where everyone else knew that if they steamrollered you, you could do the same to them. Indeed, the collegiate and consensual nature of the EU was such that I can honestly say that on no occasion during all those years of negotiations did Britain fail to secure what was in its national interest. Of course it meant hard work; of course it meant getting on with one's neighbours; of course it needed give and take—but in the end, if our country and the others knew what was essential for their national interests, it was possible to achieve it. I do not therefore have the worries that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells seems to have. I do not have them because I believe that this treaty is a necessary step to enable me better to guard the liberties of the people I represent.
	It is necessary to remind ourselves that modern transport, the ability to move money across exchanges, and our present circumstances, in which even the poorest can get on an aeroplane as long as they can pay the tax and fly throughout Europe, represent major changes. These are very different times from when people moved about much less freely, so we need to find a system that works more effectively and meets current circumstances.
	Here I am critical of the Government, because I am not at all sure that they negotiated these matters properly, partly because they asked for things that they did not need and did so in a rather hectoring manner. I can think of other Prime Ministers who adopted the same strategy and I am not sure that they always got as much as they could have got if they had behaved differently. Indeed, we have secured opt-outs on some matters, but we might have been able to influence them better if we had not chosen that route. That is what concerns me when I hear the opposition to the proposals before us.
	We need these changes to defend our citizens, but others also need the changes to defend their citizens. I find it difficult to accept that the British are always in the right. Let me give the House a simple example. We have resisted the right of European fisheries inspectors to inspect without notice, which has made it almost impossible for them to do their job. It would be hugely to the advantage of many nations if careful consideration of the activities of the Spanish—and, I fear, some of the British—fleets were available so that we could start a sensible fisheries policy. There is nothing wrong with a common fisheries policy; it is just that the policy is wrong. We have never really been able to achieve sufficient commonness to be able to have a policy that would enable us to deal with conservation. The same applies here.
	Let me deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said about what he calls the penalty. The European Union needs Britain to achieve sensible decisions that benefit the whole of the EU, so if our failure to join our neighbours sensibly proves to be a direct cost to them, and if we make it expensive for them because we render inoperative that which was to the benefit of the whole community, it is a price that we may well feel we should pay, yet it is not a fine or a penalty but a cost. Either it is paid by those who have not incurred it or it is paid by those who decide that it should be incurred. I hope that we will not be in that position, but I do not find it unreasonable for others to ask us to agree to such a position.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend is making a most convincing speech, apart perhaps from his last point. On the basis of his careful study of the operation of the penalty clause, will he remind the House who exactly decides whether and how much this country would face in penalties for making these provisions inoperable and what part this country would play in those decisions?

John Gummer: If it is we who do not enable a particular provision to be operable, those who wish to operate it do indeed make that decision, but I do not find that too upsetting. I have no doubt that we would make the best case that we could. I must say to my hon. Friend, however, that when one is a member of an organisation this is one of the responsibilities that one takes on. What the treaty of Lisbon seeks to do is enable the peoples of Europe, and the countries of Europe, to proceed effectively on the new terms on which we must work.

Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: I will proceed with my speech, if I may.
	Of course, the difficulty for us is that we would like to live in the circumstances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells described. It might be more comfortable for us to operate as if the interests of our constituents were confined to these shores and their needs were not impeded by people outside. I should be happier, too, if we had a better record ourselves. When I was lucky enough to be in Austria over the weekend, it was clear to me that the Austrian Home Secretary would not need to say that he could walk in the streets of Vienna safely, and I think that many countries in the rest of Europe would be able to uphold a position in relation to the law that would be envied in this country. So do not let us think that it is all about them learning from us; this is a community in which, together, we can learn from each other.
	The deal must be that if we want the ability to control our own future, we must recognise that that control is often impossible unless it is exercised in common with our neighbours. That is true in the context of the environment: given that 50 per cent. of our air pollution comes from the rest of Europe and we export 50 per cent. of the pollution that we create to the rest of Europe, we cannot tackle air pollution unless we tackle it together. Similarly, international trafficking and international crime cannot be tackled unless we tackle them together.
	It has been said that although we must do these things together, we should co-operate rather than having binding arrangements. All I can say is that co-operation does not deliver when things get tough. The point of binding regulation—or binding agreements—is exactly as my right hon. Friend says: at the moment when we need it, we can rely on it. We want and expect that in our relationship with our neighbours, but the deal must be that if we expect it from them, we must give it in return.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that this was all about Europe, and asked why we should not extend it wider still and wider. I have to say that if we cannot manage it with our nearest neighbours—the people with whom we share culture, religion, history and a range of other things—the possibility that we could manage it with Togo or Cameroon seems pretty distant to me. We cannot even manage it with the United States. The appalling agreement on extradition into which this Government entered is one of the scandals of which they should be ashamed. The fact that they could sign up to the Fylingdales arrangement on defence supposedly against Iran—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little carried away, and going wide of the mark.

John Gummer: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The fact that all that may be true does not mean that we should not return to the realities of life: that we are part of Europe, that we become more part of Europe as travel becomes so much easier and communication so much simpler, and that we must therefore make the best of it. When our constituents—the people who voted for us—tell us that their daughter has been arrested in another part of the European Union, what will they say? They will say "We are all in the European Union together; what are you doing about it?" Unless we have these changes, my answer will have to be "Well, we have not got around to that yet."
	There are those who say that this is merely an economic agreement. I have heard that a bit today. But as a business man—and I have declared all my interests in the register—I know perfectly well that law is crucial to my ability to carry on a business in the European Union. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to stress that that is a huge advance.
	It has been said that this discussion will reveal division on this side of the House. Given the division on the other side, that merely shows that there is real ground for argument, which is why the Government should stand condemned for not allowing enough time for our debates. Within that argument, however, I beg all on both sides who are doubtful not to set the immediacies of narrow legal points against the reality that our citizens, our electors, need the protection that the treaty of Lisbon will give them. Without that protection they will be denied the kind of legal structure that fits the days in which we live, and has moved us on from the days of the carriage and the penny post.

William Cash: I simply want to say that I certainly do not agree with the policy set out in the motion, and I do not believe that it should be implemented in United Kingdom law.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)—and, indeed, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who very fairly quoted from the Committee's work. He did not, however, quote from its conclusion:
	"We recommend that the UK Government should make clear to its EU partners that at present the case for moving criminal law matters from the third pillar has not been made. There is room for debate as to whether, in the future, it may be in the UK's interests to accept such a change. Members of our Committee hold different views as to whether it might ever be acceptable to agree to this. It is indisputable that such a change would be of great significance. The UK Government should not agree to any such proposal without full and specific parliamentary consideration of the issue."
	The present Chairman does a very good job, but he was not a member of the Committee at the time. As someone who was, I find myself in the happy position of being able to agree with myself.

Edward Garnier: For me, the debate has been a rather nostalgic affair. I made my maiden speech in 1992, during the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill, at about 1 am. I think that the House was rather emptier than it is at present.
	I find it interesting that the arguments of those who supported the Government then were very similar to the arguments of those who support the Government tonight, while the arguments of those who supported the Opposition were similar, if not identical, to the arguments of those who support them tonight.

Rob Marris: How did you vote then?

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman has asked a very acute question, to which I am sure he knows the answer.
	In the few moments left to me to sum up a truncated but, in my opinion, orderly and fascinating debate, I want to pull together some of the themes that featured in it. I am afraid that I shall not be able to pay the tribute that, had time allowed, I should have paid to the Home Secretary's speech. It deserved rather more analysis than I have time to give it, and even, perhaps, more than the House is prepared to hear.
	What I will do is congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on doing what the Home Secretary was either unwilling to do or incapable of doing: analysing the issues with which we must deal this evening and during the remaining days of the Bill's Committee stage. Let me say in parenthesis that it is perhaps a surprise, and yet no surprise, that the Lord Chancellor has awarded silk to my hon. Friend. Although he will not take up the initials until March, his approach to the debate demonstrated why the award is so suitable, and why we all share in the delight at his success.
	As I said, I do not have time to analyse the Home Secretary's speech and, unfortunately, nor do I have time to deal in depth with the speeches of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and of many other Members. However, I should pause to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). He spoke on most nights during the Maastricht debate, although at rather greater length than he spoke tonight, but he was every bit as clear in his one-sentence contribution to today's debate as he was in his longer speeches on previous occasions. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on his European Scrutiny Committee's work on the Lisbon treaty and associated matters and on his speech this evening, which was a model of a Select Committee Chairman's speech on such an occasion.
	There has been a parallel debate during our discussions. We all agree that good things can be achieved by international co-operation, but we differ on how to achieve those worthy aims. Some Liberal Democrats and the former Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and some of his Labour colleagues, believe that they should be achieved through greater co-operation within the structures of the EU. Many Conservative Members—I think particularly of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—believe that that co-operation should be achieved, if not more bilaterally, then at least with greater retention of independent power in Parliament, because otherwise what is the point of us? There is a perfectly legitimate distinction between the two philosophical standpoints, and I do not impugn the motives of the Government and nor do I claim that we have right entirely on our side, but I do say that the issues involved are of sufficient seriousness that we should have much longer to debate them. One of the problems we will face as we advance through our current proceedings is a growing perception of democratic irrelevance. It is all very well for the Home Secretary and her colleagues in the Government to return from Lisbon or whichever international conference they have attended and say that they have achieved something or other, but if the British public feel that they have played no part in that—if they feel that they have no leverage on the decisions taken on their behalf—their dissatisfaction with what has been achieved, whether for good or ill, will grow.
	It was said in the weekend papers that this Government are now beyond satire; I suggest that they are also beyond parody, but they are not beyond the reach—or the contempt—of the British people, so I urge them to think extremely carefully before they push the British public further than they are prepared to go. It seems that what according to the Government is good for us is what we will get, and an element of condescension enters into Ministers' thoughts as they present to Parliament and the public what they believe is good for us.
	What the Government believe is good for the public is the wholesale transfer of the third pillar aspects of home affairs and justice into pillar one. Issues such as drug trafficking, terrorism and serious and organised crime, and Europol and Eurojust, which are currently subject to the third pillar so that decisions on them require unanimity among member states, will be elided into pillar one. As a result, national sovereignty and parliamentary scrutiny will increasingly be eroded.
	The 27 November 2007 report of the Committee of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said it was concerned about the effectiveness of the UK opt-in arrangement on first pillar matters. The report noted that while it was clear that the UK was free to decide whether to opt in, it was less clear whether the UK had a right to opt out of a proposal should negotiations produce an unacceptable text. We have not yet received a decent answer to that troubling question. It is a key question, but the Home Secretary did not find time to grapple with it this evening.
	The reform treaty will move the remainder of the third pillar—police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters—to the first pillar with the consequence that qualified majority voting and co-decision will apply as the general rule to justice and home affairs. Legal migration policy will no longer be agreed via unanimity, but will be subject to QMV and what is nowadays called the ordinary legislative procedure—the new name for co-decision within the European Parliament. When matters move from the third to the first pillar, the powers of the Commission and the European Court of Justice are considerably increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rightly alighted upon that, as did other Members.
	The public prosecutor, Eurojust, Europol and minimum standards in criminal proceedings might all be good things in themselves, but the process, the mechanism and the accountability system is as vital as the end result. Let us consider the safeguards that the Government have promised us: the emergency braking system. As far as I remember, emergency braking is applied during times of panic and is likely to lead to skidding and, beyond that, possibly fatalities. The reform treaty produces the alleged safeguard of the opt-in arrangements, which are available to us. The transitional provisions will be of deep concern to our public, yet the Government seem to be utterly reckless of—to disregard totally—the legitimate worries we express this evening.
	My time is up. The British public will, however, probably have a further 18 months or two years to reach the conclusion that I have already arrived at as to the worthiness of this Government to continue in office. If they needed any further evidence about their unsuitability for government, tonight is the night that they will have found it.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate, which has been interesting and wide ranging. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked several specific points, particularly in his role as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I confirm to him that we believe that the current arrangements in respect of Frontex will continue as part of the Lisbon treaty and that the June timetable for Europol is appropriate and is still on track.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made his maiden contribution in his new role; we are all delighted to see him in that post, and his speech was thoughtful and well considered. He asked a number of specific points that I am sure we will continue to discuss throughout the progress of the Bill. He asked about parliamentary scrutiny: we believe that that is essential in respect of this matter and the wider European agenda, which is why clauses 5 and 6, which are not of themselves necessary to ratify the treaty, have been included in the Bill to ensure that there is a stronger power for Parliament to consider and ratify various moves across the EU. They are in place to enshrine the power of Parliament. I also note that the Leader of the House has announced 7 February as the day on which we will have the opportunity to consider motions reforming scrutiny of EU legislation, and this issue will be discussed then. I know that he is deeply involved in those conversations with his hon. Friends.
	We also heard an interesting contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. He talked in great detail and enormous knowledge about the specifics in the treaty and the Bill. A brief contribution was made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—perhaps mercifully. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Telling and regular interventions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). We are all delighted that he takes such a close interest in this process, and in all the other processes and procedures of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) has been in her place throughout the debate. She made a number of telling and entirely appropriate observations and criticisms of the Opposition's approach to the Bill.
	A relatively brief contribution was made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who retains the status of being in a minority on the Opposition Front-Bench team as a pro-European Conservative. He spoke with fond memories of his debut, and maiden speech, during the Maastricht debate. In his role then, he was obviously a member of the Conservative Group for Europe. I do not know whether he still is a member of the CGE —[Interruption.] It is dangerous to disagree with a sedentary intervention from my Chief Whip, but it has not been abolished. More tellingly, it has actually joined the Coalition for the Reform Treaty.
	We are living in a world where EU co-operation is key to seizing the opportunities, and tackling the threats, of globalisation. On Second Reading, I spoke of the opportunities of globalisation, but, as hon. Members have mentioned, there is also a darker side of globalisation: crime, terrorism, human trafficking, drug smuggling and fraud. The list goes on, and hon. Members have referred to it.
	Although citizens can reap the benefits of globalisation, terrorists and organised criminal gangs are also exploiting its tools to carry out ever more lethal operations. The internet is transforming lives for the better, but it is also a recruiting ground for terrorists and a hiding place for child sex offenders. Global financial markets and the free flow of capital are, of course, vital to increasing prosperity, but finance is also at the heart of terrorism and crime. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. Terrorists and criminals can exploit the global financial system to move money more easily and hide funds in phoney assets.
	The Government fundamentally respect national boundaries and borders, but it is clear that criminals and terrorists do not. That is why EU co-operation at this level is so vital. It is only by working with our European partners that we can better combat organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, that we can bring criminals to justice and that we can ensure rights and legal certainty for all EU citizens. The European arrest warrant helps in that regard. Exchanging criminal records, which is a new measure, will help to ensure that offenders are not given unduly lenient sentences because the courts did not know of a previous conviction. EU co-operation through Eurojust and Europol is helping to break online child sex abuse networks and human trafficking rings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said.
	Of course, the Opposition see this new framework of action and co-operation as a threat. We see the EU as a way to make Britain stronger and more secure. A lack of co-ordinated action is the threat to the United Kingdom, rather than some phoney threat resulting from a belief in a conspiracy to destroy the nation state—an argument that exercised many Conservative Members.
	The UK has always been clear that EU co-operation must be in our national interest. That is why in each and every instance—on new proposals on JHA, on amending measures, on transitional measures and on Schengen-building measures—we negotiated the relevant opt-out and opt-in, and we did so in our national interest. We have ensured the right to choose across the board whether to participate in this co-operation. The Home Secretary has alluded to the fact that the Lisbon treaty is the next step in JHA—the Foreign Secretary has also spoken about that. By moving to a system where qualified majority voting and co-decision are the norm, the treaty will unblock decision making, which is crucial.
	Opposition Members claimed that the Bill and this treaty will create a Napoleonic legal system in the UK. That is surely a new entry in the hierarchy of hysteria in Conservative Euroscepticism, because the treaty does nothing of the sort. The Conservative approach would not only prevent the ratification of the treaty; it would make it impossible in principle to participate in any of the 82 measures in pillar three post-ratification. Those matters include the following: combating serious crime; the European arrest warrant; action on racism and xenophobia; combating terrorism; and combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
	These minimum penalties and minimum standards are in our national interest, and the Conservatives' approach this evening has been a triumph of the ideology of isolationism over what is in our national interests. I commend the Government motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 360.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  put  forthwith the Main Question, pursuant to Order [this day] :—
	 The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy.

David Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Clerk is about to read the Orders of the Day, so that the House can go into Committee. The Standing Order that governs that procedure is Standing Order No. 66, which reads:
	"Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a committee on a bill... the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless notice of an instruction to such committee has been given, when such instruction shall be first disposed of".
	I have to inform the House that notice has been given of such an instruction, in the form of motion 42 on today's Order Paper, which says:
	"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the European Union (Amendment) Bill that it have power to make provision in the Bill for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union."
	That is a matter of great importance to my right hon. and hon. Friends, because it clarifies whether, in Committee, we could introduce new clauses on a referendum on whether we should be in or out of the European Union, and not just new clauses on a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon. Standing Order No. 66 is, on the face of it, unequivocal. It gives no discretion. It says "shall", not "may". It does not—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be inappropriate for him to read out his remarks. His point has been made, as far as the Chair is concerned. I am grateful to him for giving notice of his point of order. I am certainly satisfied that the power given to the Speaker to select notices of instructions is unqualified. Mr. Speaker has not selected the motion for debate. In any case, the House must proceed as directed by the order passed yesterday.

David Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In light of that ruling, is it Mr. Speaker's position that the motion that stands in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends would be selectable if it were put on the Order Paper tomorrow?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the ruling that I just gave? Mr. Speaker's position is as I have just expressed it.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If this is pursuant to the point of order already raised, I have nothing further to say. A ruling has been given. Is it a separate point of order?

Simon Hughes: It is a separate point of order in relation to yesterday's business and the business ahead for today. Yesterday, we voted to change our procedures, and that was done perfectly properly. Mr. Speaker selected some amendments and not others. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you tell the House whether the ruling that you just gave is a result of the decision that we took yesterday, or whether it is because of the Standing Orders, irrespective of yesterday?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling that has been given is the one given on instructions by the Speaker. There is nothing further that I can add to that.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill

(Clause 1, any selected amendments to Clause 2, relating to fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking and asylum and migration policy)
	 Considered in Committee.

[Sylvia Heal  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	The Treaty of Lisbon

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Murphy: Clause 1 defines the treaty of Lisbon for the purposes of the Act. The definition of the treaty of Lisbon set out in clause 1 is the full title of the treaty agreed at the intergovernmental conference in Lisbon on 13 December 2007. That is the factual, legally correct definition of the treaty. Parliament must be absolutely clear about what treaty the Bill that it is asked to approve deals with.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: Briefly.

William Cash: Of course. The Minister may be right in saying that that is what the treaty states on the face of the Bill and on the face of the treaty. However, that is not what is being done. The treaty is not, as the Government keep saying, an amending treaty. It is a treaty which merges the existing treaties with amendments—significantly different, with huge implications for the way in which the European Union will be conducted in future.

Jim Murphy: It is not my intention to engage in a detailed debate about the processes, the themes or the amendments. We shall have ample opportunity to discuss the amendments on subsequent clauses.
	Clause 1 simply defines the Lisbon treaty. It is a question of factual accuracy, without which the Bill lacks legal certainty. We should be debating the substance of the treaty.

Mark Francois: Because of the limited time that we have to deal with amendments to this important part of the treaty, I shall not dwell excessively on clause 1, not least because we argued in great detail on Second Reading why we believe that the treaty of Lisbon is, in effect, the EU constitution under another name. I shall not reprise that entire debate tonight, save to place on the record, beyond peradventure, our belief that the Lisbon treaty is the renamed EU constitution, and that the powers brought forward are effectively the same. We do not want to let clause 1 go without putting that on the record in  Hansard tonight.

William Cash: I repeat what I said in an intervention to the Minister. The new Union that is created by the merger that I described earlier will take over legal personality from the European Community, with very significant constitutional impact. This, therefore, is a fundamental change of the kind that fulfils the criteria for the Government to hold a referendum. That is all I need to say at this stage, but it is fundamental to the consideration of all that follows in these proceedings.

Bernard Jenkin: The reason why the clause should not stand part is that the Government have so far failed to explain how the treaty differs in any particular in the effect that it will have, compared to the effect that the constitution would have had. Can the Minister give a single concrete example to show how the implementation of the Lisbon treaty will result in a different effect from that of the constitution?

Christopher Huhne: Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), it is clear from the previous debate that there are four distinct areas in which the Lisbon treaty is different from the constitutional treaty—for example, in the area of justice and home affairs—including in its effects. As we discussed in the debate, if we have an opt-in—

Sylvia Heal: Order. That is not the subject of the clause 1 stand part debate.
	 Question put and agreed t o.
	 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Addition to list of treaties

Mark Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 214, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 1, paragraph 51, replacement Article 35 TEU, relating to jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
	(ii) '.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 132, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 63, replacement Title IV TEC (TFEU) relating to an area of freedom, security and justice; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 133, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 64, replacement Chapter 1 and Articles 61 to 61I TEC (TFEU), general provisions relating to an area of freedom, security and justice; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 207, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 64, inserted Article 61D TEC (TFEU), providing for a standing committee on internal security; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 208, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 64, inserted Article 61G TEC (TFEU), providing for measures to ensure administrative cooperation between national departments and the Commission in the area of freedom, security and justice; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 136, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Chapter 4 and Articles 69A to 69E TEC (TFEU) relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 8, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Article 69A, TEC (TFEU), relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 9, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Article 69B TEC (TFEU), relating to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 212, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Article 69D TEC (TFEU), relating to Eurojust; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 10, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Article 69E TEC (TFEU), relating to the European Public Prosecutor's Office; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 213, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 68, inserted Article 69F TEC (TFEU), relating to police cooperation; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 137, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 68, inserted Chapter 5 and Articles 69F to 69H TEC (TFEU) relating to police cooperation; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 11, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 68, inserted Article 69G TEC (TFEU), relating to Europol; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 216, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Protocol on Transitional Provisions, Article 10, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, relating to Acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
	(ii) '.
	Amendment No. 26, page 1, line 13, after second 'to,' insert—
	'(i) the area of freedom, security and justice; and
	(ii) '.
	New clause 4— Protection of existing police and criminal justice obligations —
	'(1) Before the expiry of the transitional provision included in Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions, the United Kingdom shall notify the Council that it does not accept the powers of the European Union institutions described in Article 10(1) of that Protocol over acts adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
	(2) In this section, "the Council" means that European Union institution founded on Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union.'.
	New clause 7— Disapplication of the legislative procedure in relation to justice and home affairs —
	'Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in Articles 68 to 89 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and shall not form part of the law applicable in any part of the United Kingdom.'

Mark Francois: I do not intend to rehearse yesterday's arguments about the business motion, which the House debated in some detail. However, we acknowledge the Government's business motion today, which amended the proposed allocation of time from four and a half hours and one and a half hours to three and a half hours and two and a half hours. The Minister knows that we argued for at least three hours and three hours, but the today's motion was a move in the right direction, given the large number of amendments that we have only two and a half hours to debate.
	I noticed earlier when we were debating the motion a number of Back Benchers who were keen to speak but who were barely able to contribute at all. I particularly noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke for 30 seconds, which I wish to nominate as the shortest ever speech in the House of Commons. I make the point to the Minister that a number of Back Benchers who are experts on the subject were not able to speak in the earlier debate. I hope that the Front-Bench speeches will be relatively brief, to allow the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions. I shall do my best to abide by that self-denying ordinance myself.
	The effect of our amendment No. 214 would be to undo one of the most important and damaging changes contained in the Lisbon treaty, which is the EU constitution by another name. The current article 35 of the treaty on the European Union limits the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the extremely sensitive area of criminal justice and co-operation on policing—all areas where the EU's powers are considerably extended by the treaty of Lisbon.
	Until the time of the EU constitution, it was effectively a matter of cross-party consensus that it was vital that the powers of the European Court of Justice should be limited in that way. As Tony Blair said just before he became Prime Minister,
	"we restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence"—[ Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 617.]
	That was for good reason. As the European Scrutiny Committee noted in its latest report,
	"the powers of the . . . ECJ are considerably increased when matters move from the Third Pillar to the First . . . the ECJ acquires jurisdiction, both to entertain such infringement proceedings and to interpret measures adopted at Union level. In respect of the matters covered by such measures, and while Union membership subsists, the national courts and parliaments are no longer the ultimate source of law."
	That is a profound change. Over time we would see current and future EU measures subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice in this area. We believe that it would not be long before important parts of our criminal law were potentially superseded by a body of European law. Notwithstanding our opt-in, those familiar with the proposed measure in minimum standards in criminal proceedings will also be familiar with how initially attractive proposals can, with amendment in the negotiating process in the EU, become distinctly less attractive. They would be joined by extensive new legislation dealing with the fundamentals of our criminal justice system.

Humfrey Malins: I am following carefully my hon. Friend's remarks about changes in our criminal law system. Does he share my concern and the concern of many of our hon. Friends that the jury system, which has been so important to this country for so very long, will possibly be attacked and may eventually disappear, unless we are very careful?

Mark Francois: I have heard that argument made in some quarters and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. On this issue, the collapse of the third pillar into the first pillar is a matter of profound significance. I hope that if he is lucky enough to catch the Chairman's eye, my hon. Friend may develop that argument further, not least because we would like to hear the Minister's reply.
	The areas within criminal procedure to which I was referring include victims' rights and the mutual admissibility of evidence. The Government put forward objections to the scope of those powers when they were first included in the EU constitution, but then dropped their objections with no explanation.
	Then there are the new EU legislative powers to make laws on the minimum definition of crimes and their penalties in eight areas: terrorism; trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children; illicit drug trafficking; money laundering; corruption; counterfeiting of means of payment; computer crime; and organised crime. Again, the Government made reasoned objections to the list, but those were dropped without explanation.
	Under the treaty, all those new areas of legislation would come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That would bring to an end the intergovernmental nature, which we strongly support, of EU co-operation on the area. It would represent a major transfer of power to the EU and severely diminish Britain's control over its criminal justice system. That is specifically why we tabled the amendment, and I am delighted that it was selected to lead the group.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend referred to human trafficking. Is he aware that the Council of Europe and its 47 members govern the policy on human trafficking? I have just come from an all-party group meeting at which the chief executive of the immigration service said that he saw no advantage in the Lisbon treaty in respect of improving the human trafficking situation.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. My understanding is that the convention against human trafficking is, as he says, a Council of Europe document, rather than an EU document per se. I also understand that the Government have not ratified that convention. It seems odd that earlier, during the debate on the motion, the Home Secretary was praying that agreement in aid; on further examination, it turns out that the Government have not ratified it. That seems a curious way to make an argument and I shall be interested in what the Minister says about it when he responds to this debate.
	I said that I would attempt to be brief, so I turn to some of the other amendments. Amendment No. 207 would remove the new committee on internal security, whose full scope is yet to be determined and which the non-governmental organisation Statewatch has described as an EU interior ministry. Perhaps the Minister will have a different view of the committee's role, but it would be helpful to hear from the Government what they believe the Committee is designed to do; its role is certainly not made clear in the text of the treaty. If the House is to assent to it tonight, we will want to know what we will be signing up to. Will the Minister explain exactly what the committee is designed to do? From the treaty text, that is not clear.
	Amendment No. 208 would remove a provision that could leave Britain with worryingly little control over very sensitive information. It provides for administrative co-operation to be by qualified majority voting, but protects our rights with regard to sensitive data. Amendment No. 8 would remove the unnecessary and extensive new EU powers over some of the basics of our criminal justice system, such as criminal procedure, to which I referred earlier. I remind the House that the Government objected to the clause in its current form as unacceptable because, in the words of their counter-argument,
	"the 'definition of the rights of individuals in criminal procedure' would cover almost any aspect of criminal procedure during an investigation, prosecution and conviction. It is essential that this article is restricted in scope and is made subject to unanimity."
	That view was absolutely right; our amendment would give effect to Government policy as it stood only a few years ago, before the Government caved in on that important matter.
	Amendment No. 9 deals with the extensive increase in the EU's ability to make laws on those other areas of criminal justice that were similarly unsuccessfully opposed by the Government during the negotiations. Amendment No. 212 would remove the extensive new powers given to Eurojust, in particular the right to initiate investigations—powers that the Government again strenuously opposed. Amendment No. 10 would remove the basis for a European public prosecutor—a provision that, again, the Government opposed absolutely. The Government amendment at the convention explained that:
	"We are firmly opposed to establishing a European Public Prosecutor. Unanimity does not mean that this article can be accepted."
	We agree: the article is unacceptable. Amendment No. 213 would remove the considerable extension of EU control over policing, including the right to legislate on common investigative techniques in relation to serious organised crime. Amendment No. 11 would remove the extension to Europol's powers; those extensions were opposed by the Government during the negotiations on the EU constitution, whose text is reproduced here.
	Finally, amendment No. 216 would remove the extraordinary article in the protocols that lays this country open to what in effect is a fine if it decides that any provision to which we have signed up has become unacceptable when it has changed from an intergovernmental to a community measure.
	The European Scrutiny Committee, whose Chairman made a thoughtful speech that will bear reading again by all Members of this House, has said that
	"we do not understand why the UK did not interpret the red line on protection of the UK's position in a firmer form by insisting on a provision which would have preserved the effect of existing EU measures in relation to the UK...This would have ensured that the UK would keep what it now holds and would more effectively have protected the UK's interests. It would have been open to the UK to keep its existing EU measures in their present form indefinitely as an alternative to opting in to a measure which would be subject to the enforcement powers of the Commission and the jurisdiction of the ECJ."
	We Conservatives share the European Scrutiny Committee's lack of comprehension on that matter—and it is a Labour-led Committee with a Labour Chairman. With the Committee, we note that Denmark's protocol is far superior to ours; that point was made by the Committee's Chairman. The protocol that applies to the United Kingdom is not as strong and does not give us the protection that we need. The Home Secretary talked about a negotiating triumph; why did we not negotiate or sign up to the Danish protocol? Her argument that we had enjoyed a triumph would still not carry, but at least there would be more meat behind it. In fact, the Government opposed 40 measures in this area at the convention, but they managed to get only two changed. We argued on 40, we changed two and we lost 38; I defy any Member of any party in this House to justify that as a negotiating triumph. What would we have called a loss?
	All those areas, vital to our sovereignty and essential to democratic accountability, need to be debated this evening as best we can in the time that we have. The Government largely objected to them when they were first proposed; they were unnecessary and objectionable then and they are so now. No fact on the ground has changed. Our amendments would give effect to long-standing cross-party British policy upheld by the Government at the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and for which they themselves argued in the European constitution. In a sense, we are trying with our amendments to put right the Government's mistakes. I commend them to the House.

Gisela Stuart: I want to make a few brief comments on the office of the European public prosecutor, to which amendment No. 10 relates. It is what singularly troubles me about the entire provisions.
	It may be helpful to remind ourselves of the history of the institution's creation; it is one of the most contentious. In the very first draft of the original constitution, the office was not mentioned at all. It was then inserted with a clause saying that it could be introduced by unanimity in 10 years' time. A certain group of people, driven very much by political motives, needed to have it down as a marker. The political debate on the office was about whether it should have competence over serious crime that had a cross-border element on the one hand, or over serious or cross-border crime on the other.
	We need to understand the politics. The UK Government have been consistently and deeply opposed to the office's creation. In the original document, the safeguard, which the British Government thought sufficient, was unanimity. As I understand it—I will be happy to be corrected on this—the current provisions are much worse. It is not done on the basis of unanimity; it allows the arrangement to be created by a kind of enhanced co-operation. That means that just like the Prüm agreement, which allows for police co-operation, a small group, irrespective of the wishes of the majority, can set itself up and then turn to the others and say, "It's a fait accompli, it's here, it's no longer worth arguing about." My main reason for opposing most of the justice and home affairs provisions is not that they move out of the third pillar, but the existence of the possibility of the creation of this office, which has no other purpose than political.

Christopher Huhne: Let me start with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Having looked at the efforts that the European Union has, over the years, put into trying to deal with fraud—particularly given the embarrassment of year in, year out failing to have its accounts signed off by the Court of Auditors—it seems to me that one very important role for the European public prosecutor is to be able to give some attention to those issues, which have not traditionally been attended to by national prosecutors because they have not been thought of sufficient importance. Until several of the member states see that it is crucial to provide adequate paperwork to the Commission, we will have the continued problem, now in its 13th year, of the Community's budget not being signed off as a true and proper—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I want to be clear about this. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a prosecutor at European level should have the right to investigate over and above the authorities of the nation state—that as long as the issue is in some way loosely connected with European funds he or she should have the right to take precedence over the existing status of the nation state?

Christopher Huhne: It is not a question of taking precedence but of doing something that is not being done. This is an elision that is very familiar to those of us who have dealt with Eurosceptic concerns over the years. We must not elide what is a capability and what then replaces something going on at the national level. The EU can have a competence, but that does not mean that it has an exclusive competence. The ability to investigate a fraud against the EU budget seems to be an important one which we know has not been followed through.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a very simple question. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a European prosecutor would have the right to investigate European so-called frauds within the United Kingdom over and above the powers that are given to the United Kingdom Government? That is all I want to know. Is this role going to take precedence over the involvement of British Ministers?

Christopher Huhne: I said very clearly that it is not a question of taking precedence over anything that is done by our authorities. The reality is that we are one of the member states that has pursued matters of fraud against the EU budget over the years, as we did, for example, in relation to some of the cross-border scams between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is a question whether there should be a capability to pursue fraud against the EU budget. The hon. Lady is attempting to have it both ways. It is of course possible to say, "Yes, this is outrageous—here is money that is being inadequately spent and inadequately monitored by the European Union" and then on the other hand to say, "No, we cannot have a means that will allow us to deal with it."

Dominic Grieve: The issue that the hon. Gentleman has not addressed concerns the source of justice within a nation state. Either justice is controlled through Parliament, through the office of the Attorney-General and the national courts, or there is a supranational power with power to intervene. That is precisely what he was describing, although he could not quite bring himself to admit it. I ask him to be clear about this, because what he is really talking about is a federal model with a federal prosecutor.

Christopher Huhne: Absolutely not. There is a fundamental difference, which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken on board. We are talking about a prosecutor, and a prosecutor is still somebody who has to make a case in a court, and that court would be a court of the member state. Therefore, all the normal judicial process that we would guarantee here in the UK would be present.

Dominic Grieve: Prosecutions in this country are brought by the Crown. Nobody else brings prosecutions. The Crown is the font of justice and brings prosecutions against individuals who transgress the law. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a supranational authority bringing prosecutions in our court. That is a seismic change in our constitutional arrangements, and I wish he would accept that and then argue it.

Christopher Huhne: I think the seismic change would be if there were any change in the arrangements for trying an offence. If there is a question of prosecuting an offence, that still goes before a jury and still goes through the normal process. That is absolutely fundamental.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Christopher Huhne: Having given way on several occasions, let me turn to amendment No. 214. Just like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in the previous debate, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) completely failed to take on board exactly how these provisions would work. As they conceded, the UK can choose whether to opt in. The UK will clearly not opt in to measures that we would not want the European Court of Justice to opine on. That is a stronger position than the constitutional treaty provided for. If the UK does not want to be involved in a measure that the ECJ will have no jurisdiction over, we have a very clear option not to do that.
	The second point, which the hon. Member for Rayleigh did not take on board at all, concerns what would happen if we made a mistake—as he would put it—and elected to enter into this process, but then it somehow went wrong during the negotiations and when we found we no longer wanted to participate, given how the negotiations had gone. In the Lisbon treaty, we have very clearly, for the first time, the emergency brake procedure whereby the matter goes to the European Council. That is fundamental. Article 9B(4) says:
	"Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus."
	Consensus means unanimity. [Hon. Members: "It doesn't."] It does. There is an appeal process. If a member of the European Council declares that it is not in line with the negotiations— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry; this is very clear. If a member of the European Council says that it does not agree, it is not possible to proceed by consensus and under the treaty, for the first time, it is absolutely clear that that provision will then fall. There is a fall-back. It is not necessary to decide at the beginning of the negotiation process—one can go all the way through that process and then have the emergency brake and go to the European Council, where if there is no consensus—if, for example, the British Prime Minister says, "No, I'm sorry—I cannot accept this"—the matter does not proceed.

Peter Bone: I must be misunderstanding the English language. Surely a consensus is the view of the great majority of people present, but it can exclude one person.

Christopher Huhne: indicated dissent.

Peter Bone: Why not call it a veto then?

Christopher Huhne: That is simply the way that it has always been described as regards the European Council. Let us remember that the European Council makes its appearance in these treaties for the first time: it has until now been an informal body. In effect—Conservative Members should take this on board—the treaty incorporates, for the first time, de Gaulle's empty chair policy and Luxembourg compromise in the body of European law; that is why we are happy to support it.

Richard Shepherd: That goes to the centre of much of our uncertainty and doubt. We have a language too. Consensus has one meaning, and unanimity has a distinctly different meaning. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's years of toil in the European Union and Brussels—

Philip Davies: He went native.

Richard Shepherd: It may be that those years so nativised the hon. Gentleman that he cannot see the distinction in our written forms between consensus and unanimity. We are talking about something now that is terribly important and sensitive in terms of our whole legal system. This is not about smearing words, or saying them. It is not about his personal interpretation—the interpretation will not be made by him, in the end, but by others and ultimately by a Court that will often be beyond our control. That is what is germane to this argument. It is too easy to trivialise it by trying to maintain the new definition for the English dictionary that he has conceived for the purpose of this debate.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that the provision is new and that it has not been in the treaties. Indeed, it was not in the constitutional treaty. It is a fundamental change between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty. His party has been attempting to say that there are no basic changes, but there are important safeguards that are key.

David Heathcoat-Amory: May I help the hon. Gentleman on the definition of the word "consensus"? At the conclusion of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which I and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) attended, the constitution was adopted by consensus—that was the phrase that was used—even though I and eight other members had tabled a minority report and explicitly rejected the constitution. Despite that fact, the constitution was presented to the European Council and adopted by the Council, again by consensus. I have no faith in European decision making. When it suits them, they turn opposition into consensus. That is an historical fact, not a speculation.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Gentleman is well versed in these issues, but despite his point he does not yet have the same status as a Head of Government. Throughout the operation of the European Council, whenever it has made decisions by consensus they have involved the agreement of everybody. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, as a keen student of EU history, that began with General de Gaulle's empty chair policy and the famous Luxembourg compromise. That compromise, on the French part, determined the ability of one of the member states to ram on the brakes when it thought that a matter was of vital national interest and to say, "No, we will not allow that to go through." The fact that the provision has now been incorporated in the treaty goes directly back to the set of events that involved General de Gaulle and the empty chair policy. Given the history, I find it completely inconceivable—although it is totally in line with Conservative Members' usual attempts to build up paranoid ideas of what might happen—that the circumstances would develop in such a way.
	We will oppose the amendments.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman's argument is not carrying the House with him. He might have been able to carry Liberal Back Benchers with him if a single one of them was here to debate fundamental changes to our legal system. Unfortunately, not many Liberals have turned up. In their absence, will the hon. Gentleman admit that even an opt-in emergency brake combination is weaker than a veto, because with a veto we can just say no?

Christopher Huhne: The reality is that the provision is substantially stronger than what was proposed in the constitutional treaty. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that we have here a major change compared with the constitutional treaty. If he wants to play the numbers game, I am happy to count Back Benchers and the support provided for Front Benchers. I have been here throughout the day. There was a point at which there was such enthusiasm for the line that the Conservative Front Benchers were taking that there were precisely nine Conservative MPs in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is somehow energising his Back Benchers, all I can say is, "Dream on!"

Gisela Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Huhne: No, I will not give way again. I end by repeating that we will not support the amendments.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). This Chamber lacks spontaneity, imagination and colour, and when we reach the point where we have fairy tales we should welcome them—so long as we are not making legislation.
	The slight difficulty with the amendments is that they are central to what we are debating. They are not jokes; they are not an amusement and they are not just about the interpretation of the word "consensus". They represent a series of fundamental decisions on the future of justice in the United Kingdom. We ought to say to the Minister and to those who have followed the line that the changes are minor that it has taken us a long time to build a system of common law in this country. It is essential to our courts that the laws should be easily understood by the British people and by those who appear in the courts to defend and prosecute. People should understand the systems of appeal and the ways in which their rights can be protected if, for any reason, they are brought to court.
	I believe that this evening we are talking about enormous changes, and we ought to be honest about that. We ought not to pretend to the British people that they are minor administrative measures or a minor reorganisation. What was the lovely word used by the hon. Member for Eastleigh? We ought not to pretend that the changes are an "elision"—what a wonderful word—off into some other side track. The changes are not that.
	I am saddened that the Minister has not made it clear throughout the debate—he had the opportunity to do so early on—that having been defeated, the British Government chose to vote against the proposals. That seems simple. If they had put forward their objections and spelled them out sensibly and constructively, and had then been defeated by that consensus, they should have registered a vote to the effect that the reason they had taken such a line was that it was what was demanded by our Parliament and our system of justice. So far, I have not heard those arguments or any refutation.
	I know that it will come as a surprise to the Minister, but I question what Opposition. Members say. I question them as much as I question my Ministers. The arguments that have been put forward from across the House are about the future of our justice system. We are debating not administrative changes or a reorganisation of the Labour party into different wards, but the future of the rights of UK citizens. I happen to think that that is quite important. I demand of my Government, in simple terms, that they explain why, if the point was so fundamental when they first objected, it is not fundamental now. Is it sufficient to say, "I have been defeated"? I suppose that it shows a want of imagination if I say that I am frequently defeated in this Chamber, but that does not stop me. I believe that we have the right to know.

Christopher Huhne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I should be delighted, as the hon. Gentleman has been a real asset to the debate.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I agree that we are talking about the rights of British citizens. However, does she agree that those rights are just as important when citizens are outside the country as when they are here? After all, this House has voted in the past to go to war to defend the rights of British citizens abroad. We now have the ability, in part as a result of this treaty, to ensure that there are minimum legal standards for the three quarters of a million British citizens who live in the EU. Does she not agree that those people have rights as well?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am convinced that the UK has the right to defend its citizens wherever they are. From the age of 16, I lived in perhaps eight or 10 different countries. I had no difficulty conforming with the laws of whichever society I was living in. If I contravened those laws, I expected to pay some penalty, but I also expected, if needs be, to be able to ask the UK Government to come to my defence. However, none of that gives me the right, in this House, to vote away the fundamental rights of the British people.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Lady has touched on something that all of us in the Chamber understand. The importance of our justice system is that everyone in this realm, this United Kingdom, who comes within its jurisdiction is, one way or another, able to grasp what the law is. We expect, through the aegis of this House of Commons, to be able to defend our historical and traditional rights under the common law. They go back nearly a thousand years, and they are essential to our very sense of liberty. That may not weigh so strongly with the near-leader of the Liberal Democrat, but it is profoundly important to me and my colleagues.
	We understand our legal system and trial by jury, but they are not common to the whole of Europe. We are trying to understand why the Government are prepared for the possibility that the process of consensus will—or may, or could—cause the changes proposed in the treaty to come about. That is why these debates are important—as my honourable friend, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), has said.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His commitment to the rights of UK citizens is clear in everything that he says. When we are elected to this House, we have one simple responsibility—to make the law. We try to do that as well as we can: when we make mistakes, we examine what went wrong; when we pass bad laws, we try to alter them. That is what we who are elected to this House do, and I do not accept even the concept that a supranational prosecutor can tell the UK Government that they have not prosecuted EC law sufficiently.
	To me, that is simple effrontery. I sat in the European Parliament for year after year, and I never heard the Commission take the question of fraud seriously.

Christopher Huhne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: No, I will not. If we seriously think that the proposals that we are considering will improve our system of justice, we are misleading ourselves but, more seriously, we are most certainly misleading the British people.
	If the Government do not accept the amendments, we need to know why. Why did the Government not maintain their objections to the treaty? Why did they not vote against some of the proposals? Why did they not promote very clearly the benefits of a common law system, and make it clear that it cannot be married with the Napoleonic code without enormous damage being done to the fundamental rights of the British people?
	If the Government cannot answer those questions, we should not let the legislation proceed.

William Cash: Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 136 and 137 in this group were tabled in my name. They are supported by 20 fellow Back Benchers and many others in the Conservative party. Moreover, we have now established a rapport with our Front-Bench colleagues, which means we are working very cohesively. There might be some differences here and there, but we are basically all together and our clear mission is to explain—in very difficult circumstances and according to an impossible timetable—what the introduction into UK law of this extremely opaque treaty will mean.
	The treaty has been deliberately devised to be as hard to understand as the Eurocrats and the Government can make it. We went into that yesterday, but it is an affront in terms of time and of management. It is very nearly impossible in the time available to go into what is a substantial series of arguments. If I had more time, I would want to go into those arguments further to illustrate to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who made such a sound point, and other hon. Members, the impact that the treaty's provisions will have on the rights of the people of this country, individually and collectively.
	I referred to the distinction between the operation of our legal system and those of other European countries. There are 27 member states and they each have their own distinctive legal system. It would be completely impossible on such an occasion to make a comparative legal analysis of the differences, but they do exist, and they are very important to the people of those countries and to the European Union as a whole. For example, as I said in the previous debate, judges in the French system are appointed politically. It may seem odd that we should mention that. They would be surprised if anyone suggested that they should not be appointed politically because their system has been conducted in that way for generations.
	Accompanying that process is a state prosecution service. People go straight into that service; they do not undertake the prosecution of criminal offences as members of the Bar, as do my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and other Members who are learned barristers. In France, there is a completely different system. I had experience of the code civil recently and it is difficult to work out which procedures prevail in it. They are written down in a constitutional manner and were brought forward, as some have said before, under the Napoleonic code.
	It is simply not possible to marry such a system with ours to get the sort of consensus to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) referred. That is just rubbish. Without co-ordinating the laws into a uniform system, it would be impossible to apply similar criteria to each of the laws in the respective member states, or to say that the European prosecutor will be able to make a judgment on behalf of Europe as a whole as to what the tests should be of the prosecutions he initiates.
	Each of the 27 member states has its own state prosecution service, or a separate such service as we have in this country. I could enlarge on that, but in a nutshell I am describing an exercise in comparative law. Some books and authorities have attempted to explain all that, but it does not get us anywhere as a legislature. That is the problem. An academic exercise, which in a way is what this debate amounts to, simply will not do. We are dealing with the rights of the people of this country.
	It is difficult in the time available to do more than indicate the things that caused me concern and led me to table the amendments that were selected: amendments Nos. 132, 133, 136 and 137. I shall attempt to do so, and I shall try to be as brief as possible. I shall, however, have to reduce my carefully argued analysis into a truncated form. I am certain that I will not do the subject justice, but, given that justice has not been done to us in arranging the business, I hope that hon. Members will be indulgent enough to accept that it is simply not possible to do the job as well as one would wish.
	The amendments deal with fighting cross-border crime, co-decision in the EU, qualified majority voting and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over police and judicial co-operation. Article 61 of the Lisbon treaty states:
	"The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States."
	That introduces the question, which we shall consider later—I trust that we will have an opportunity to consider it properly and at some length—of "respect for fundamental rights". The concept is casually thrown in to article 61, which goes on to consider endeavouring
	"to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime,"—
	I tackled some of those issues by referring to the differences between legal systems—
	"racism and xenophobia".
	A definition of "xenophobia" is not to be found in the treaty. Nobody knows what it is, except through some sort of cultural assessment. There is no legal definition. We encountered that problem in the European Scrutiny Committee when we considered the European arrest warrant. I could go into much more detail, and those who are interested can read the report on the matter.
	Then there is the operation of the European Court of Justice. As I have said, EU institutions will not take into account the special nature of British common law.

Bernard Jenkin: The term "xenophobia" has been applied by supporters of the treaty to its opponents. Would it be legally possible for someone who opposes aspects of the EU on principle to be guilty of a crime under the treaty?

William Cash: If the fools who make such statements have listened to the arguments that those who have considered the treaty presented, they stand condemned by the stupidity of their words.

David Heathcoat-Amory: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to article 69B, which reinforces his point? It would give the EU the power to define criminal offences and sanctions—in other words, punishments—in new spheres, including organised crime. At the time, the Government rightly opposed that through an unsuccessful amendment because British law does not recognise a category of "organised crime". It is not defined in our jurisprudence and we are therefore incorporating an alien definition into our judicial system through the treaty.

William Cash: Absolutely. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to learn that I have a lot of material on that. Again, I will not be able to go into the matter in detail, but article 69B states:
	"The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure"—
	we shall deal with that highly objectionable new procedure later—
	"establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension.".
	We all want to be able to deal with the problems posed by international gangs and international crime but, as I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the treaty provision is motherhood and apple pie. We all want co-operation to deal with international criminal gangs, but will they be operating just in the European Union? No. There are international criminal gangs that operate all over the world. It is precisely because what is wanted is a uniform legal system, at the expense of our common law system and our judicial processes, which are free from political interference, dual criminality and so on, along with a whole range of criteria, that we are insistent that there should not be the intention that lies behind the treaty. That is why we propose in my amendments to leave out the relevant words. That intention is to consolidate all the different legal systems and the legal criteria that are applicable to 27 member states, but the attempt will simply fail.

James Clappison: While my hon. Friend is on article 69B and the interesting phrase "offences with a cross-border dimension", does he share my curiosity to know whether the Government interpret it as referring to a particular offence with a cross-border dimension or to all offences in the list in article 69B? Some of those offences may have a cross-border dimension, but the provision could include all such offences, whether there was a cross-border dimension to a particular offence or not. That could cover a huge range of criminal offences and bring European authority, through the Commission's right of enforcement and, most importantly, the European Court of Justice, into the definition of offences, criminal procedures and the sanctions to be applied.

William Cash: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we have looked into all such questions. The reason we found the proposals to be objectionable is basically that, as lawyers or politicians in this country, we apply definitions to words because we believe that there should be some exactness about whether someone has committed an offence or not. However, that is not how these other people operate—I say "these other people", because I am afraid that they do not use language in their statutes in the way that we do. I do not see why we in this Parliament should be subjected to laws that are brought in by people who are inexact in their legislation and inexact in the criminal offences that are created.
	It is just not good enough for the hon. Member for Eastleigh to burble on about European culture and the European dimension, as if there were not serious implications for his constituents. I bet my bottom dollar that they will not be happy at the idea of being subjected to the kind of judicial processes that are in mind under the treaty, and I bet that he is not explaining the matter to them, either, although that is another story. The eurocracy that exists, and of which he is a pre-eminent member, albeit a Member of this House, too—

Christopher Huhne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No, I will not give way. I am simply making a generalised point, which is that the significance of what is contained in the treaty is not known to the man or woman in the street in this country in the way they deserve to know it. That is what this Committee stage is about.
	I should like to move on, although I am mindful of the time and will have to get through as quickly as I can. We have already dealt with the fact that there will be risks to British citizens. In response to the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh made, I have recent experience of British citizens who were subjected to courts in Germany and France. Leaving aside the problems of translation, I could give him a dissertation, which I shall not give him now, on the sheer hell that they experienced, with serious consequences for their personal rights. They could not understand the proceedings and were not subjected to any procedure that we would recognise, and the whole process was a complete travesty.

Christopher Huhne: On that point, one of the provisions in the justice and home affairs part of the treaty establishes minimum standards for defendants. I am sure that Conservative Members will remember the case of the British plane spotters who were accused of spying in Greece in 2001. That is an important example. As I said to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the rights of our citizens when they go to other member states are not insignificant, because 750,000 of them now live in other member states, and millions of us go abroad every year. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to have minimum standards, given the examples in Germany and France that he has just outlined?

William Cash: Mutual recognition will take pride of place in the new Lisbon treaty; I could give the hon. Gentleman a dissertation on that as well. The plain fact is that mutual recognition—the principal point that lies at the heart of what the hon. Gentleman was fumbling towards—is part of the problem, because it cannot take account of the distinctions that exist between the different legal systems.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is trying to pretend that the treaty is about extending British law into the rest of the European Union, when in fact it will extend European Union law into British law?

William Cash: Precisely. As I said in a recent debate, what we want is British law for British judges and British judges for British law. That pretty well sums up in a sentence what I think we should be doing with respect to the treaty. And we should have a British Parliament for the British people. That is the point.

Richard Shepherd: The concept of mutual recognition has bothered the House before, and for very good reasons. It means that we must regard other legal systems as having the same standing as our own. We have only to look at the judicial processes in other countries, where one may be held in prison for many months while an investigation is carried out, to see systems that I would not naturally mutually recognise.

William Cash: Absolutely. My very good friend summarises the position well. Indeed, that is what is bringing Conservative Members together. With the great and honourable exception of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, there are virtually no Labour Members present except the Minister. That is not a good sign when we are dealing with matters of this importance, and I think that the Minister ought to be looking thoroughly uncomfortable. In fact, he is, now.
	I shall move on to amendment No. 133. Under the general heading of "Justice", the treaty gives the European Council the power to define objectives for United Kingdom legislation on freedom, security and justice. Article 61A states:
	"The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and Operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice."
	That is the European Council that the hon. Member for Eastleigh was prattling on about just now—

Christopher Huhne: When I wasn't fumbling.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman must take his medicine; he certainly deserves it.
	I am not going to exempt the Minister from this, either. This is what he has agreed to:
	"The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and Operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice."
	It cannot be right for us to be locking ourselves into this kind of requirement. In law, "shall" means "must", and that relates to the law as applied by the European Court. There is no doubt whatever that we should reject this. The 1999 temporary European Council provided a programme setting out policy guidelines and objectives with a timetable for their achievement. Under the Lisbon treaty, the European Council is obliged to define guidelines for legislative operational action. That is a step up into the arena that we should reject.
	Article 61B is another provision whereby "National Parliaments" are to be placed under a legal obligation to make sure that European Union police and justice comply with national authority. It provides yet another example of an obligation being imposed on national Parliaments. There is no need to go further into this right now, because we will deal with it later, but this obligation, which the European Scrutiny Committee has censured in its report by requiring that there should be no ambiguity about it, offends article 9 of the Bill of Rights. As I say, I am not going into that now, because we will hopefully have a proper debate later.

Christopher Huhne: I would like to cite the article to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Article 61B states:
	"National Parliaments ensure that the proposals and legislative initiatives submitted under Chapters 4 and 5 comply with the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionaility."
	Is it not key to note here that the hon. Gentleman is looking a gift horse in the mouth? Surely this part of the treaty suggests that subsidiarity is a rather important principle.

William Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eastleigh should walk into that one. The fact is that there is not one example that he or anyone else ever has or can give of subsidiarity being applied in practice since I described it as a con trick at the beginning of the Maastricht treaty debates all those 15 years ago. The fact remains that there has been no subsidiarity and there will be no subsidiarity.

Gisela Stuart: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but there is an example. One of the previous UK presidencies saw the animal zoo directive, which fell on the basis of breaching subsidiarity.

William Cash: I am glad to hear of that one example. I am indebted to the hon. Lady for that revelation. At last I have heard one person give one example of one instance of subsidiarity— [Interruption.] Yes, a crucial one. In fact, the hon. Member for Eastleigh does not even do justice to his own argument, because the article refers to compliance with the principle of subsidiarity
	"in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity"
	and then it specifies "and proportionality", which he did not mention.

Christopher Huhne: That is what I said.

William Cash: No, the hon. Gentleman did not say it.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman was not listening.

William Cash: I most certainly was listening. I always listen to everything the hon. Member for Eastleigh says because it provides me with such a great opportunity to demolish his arguments.

Bernard Jenkin: At risk of revisiting old debates, subsidiarity is of course a double-edged sword. I have frequently seen subsidiarity prayed in aid by the Commission as a means of centralising power. It has argued that subsidiarity demands that power be exercised at the lowest possible level, which it concludes is at the centre. Thus it was argued that air traffic control, for example, should be centralised on grounds of subsidiarity.

William Cash: I am delighted to hear that, but my hon. Friend has to be a bit careful here because subsidiarity is a theological concept, which was actually created or invented by the Jesuits. I was educated by the Jesuits, so I know all about this— [Interruption.] The principle regarding theology and hierarchy was exactly as my hon. Friend suggested. The whole object of the exercise was to demonstrate that whereas people should be allowed to lead their own lives in their own fashion at a certain level, they had to obey the highest level of the highest hierarchy, which is, of course, the Vatican from where the Pope speaks ex cathedra. It will not surprise anyone if I make an immediate analogy: just as subsidiarity leads to centralisation of decisions ex cathedra from the Vatican in the theological sense, so it will lead ex cathedra to what is decided by the European Court of Justice and the European Union. That is what it is all about.
	Article 61C concerns the implementation of new measures to evaluate policies in areas of freedom, security and justice. Again, it requires the application of those provisions by qualified majority voting, and again it refers to member states being required
	"in collaboration with the Commission"
	—that wonderful word "collaboration", with its resonances of the 1940s—to
	"conduct objective and"
	—so-called—
	"impartial evaluation of the implementation of the Union policies".
	In relation to justice, article 61G states that the Council will
	"ensure administrative cooperation between...Member States"
	on police and judicial co-operation measures. That is another provision which, although I have not time to go into it in detail, raises serious points of objection. As for fighting cross-border crime, a European Union security committee will be set up to co-ordinate—that famous word—national police, customs and civil protection authorities. Apparently, it is proposed that the committee should focus on internal security. I regard that as, potentially, an extremely dangerous co-ordinating operation in the context of internal security and, no doubt, surveillance and all the other powers that will be involved.
	As I said in an intervention yesterday, one of the things that worry me is that in the space of one or two lines in the treaty, we are legislating to require the people of this country to implement the law under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, thus creating through a few lines and truncated proceedings the equivalent of many Bills which would normally undergo all their procedures in both Houses of Parliament. That is utterly outrageous.
	Member states will be expected to surrender legislative initiative on border checks, asylum and immigration and judicial co-operation in civil matters.

Peter Bone: One of the Government's arguments for accepting this part of the treaty was that it would help to solve the problem of human trafficking, but our problem in this country is that we do not have secure borders to stop trafficking. From what my hon. Friend has said, it seems that the situation will get worse under the treaty, not better.

William Cash: That is one of the reasons why so many of us believe that the European Union does not work. It is full of good thoughts, in the sense that the aim is to improve things. It is motherhood and apple pie. But when we examine the bottom line and the nuts and bolts—which is what Committee proceedings are supposed to be all about—one argument after another must confront the question of whether or not it will work. Is it right for this legislation to become part of our law and, through the European Communities Act, be imposed on the people whom we represent?
	We simply would not put up with it if a Bill were introduced that contained three lines that simply stated that its contents would be an obligation on our constituents. There would be riots in the streets. The fact is, however, that that is exactly what is happening. I am not exaggerating when I say that: it is here on the pieces of paper that we are discussing. In a matter of a few lines, we are legislating and imposing obligations on our constituents. I fear they are not properly informed of that, because the best way in which to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. They do not know what is going on, which is why I have repeatedly urged all my colleagues, and my party, to get out there and explain these matters with conviction and passion. If we do not do so, the people will not know what is going on and they will regret that later.
	There is another provision defining certain criminal offences and minimum rules that would override United Kingdom criminal laws and sentencing procedures: article 69B. Again, I will not go into the detail on that. Article 69C addresses interfering in crime prevention beyond existing cross-border measures. Under the provisions relating to Eurojust in article 69D, the British judiciary will be required to submit to Eurojust interference in criminal investigations and there will be massive interventions in prosecuting serious crime.
	Every aspect of the treaty requires detailed analysis, which we simply cannot give it tonight. The creation of the European public prosecutor has already been mentioned.

Graham Brady: On article 69D, my hon. Friend spoke earlier about the occasionally sloppy language used, but it is sometimes interesting when the language is deliberately different. We had an exchange earlier about the role of the European public prosecutor's office, which could only exercise the functions of the prosecutor in the competent courts of the member states in relation to certain offences, whereas in relation to Eurojust the provisions make it clear that there is scope for
	"the initiation of criminal investigations, as well as proposing the initiation of prosecutions conducted by competent national authorities".
	There is a distinct difference: one body can operate independently of national authorities, whereas the other apparently cannot.

William Cash: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is a former shadow Europe Minister and he knows in detail about such matters, and I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to that provision.
	Amendment No. 137 addresses policing. It is stated that EU policing measures will eventually be reached through enhanced co-operation. The number of such enhanced co-operation provisions has grown over time, as there is a notion that it does not really matter if member states are not in complete agreement about proposals because if enough states come together to create momentum, that will start off the process. The theory is that several member states agree to come together and then the others will be forced to join in later, because they will find that they have been outflanked as a result of the provision having been initiated by the member states who originally signed up to it.
	These measures will affect police co-operation. I hear what some say about the fact that we will not have one uniform police system throughout Europe, but I see every indication of creeping competences in many different fields, which will carry with them issues to do with burden of proof and whether an arrested person will be given adequate opportunity to be heard. We know that brutality takes place in some police services elsewhere in Europe. Our system might not be perfect, but I would be a lot more comfortable if I thought my constituents were being legislated for by this House in a properly measured fashion. There is currently a great deal of argument in this country about whether it should be allowed for people to be held for 28 days or a different period. All I can say is that, in this particular context, the idea of giving increasing powers to a European police force to co-ordinate, organise and undertake investigations carries very serious dangers.
	There are many other matters that I would like to discuss, but there simply is not the time to do so, as I know other Members want to speak. I tabled these amendments not as a point of hostility but as a point of clarity, and that is why I believe they enjoy a measure of support. I say that to my Front-Bench team as well as to other colleagues. It is essential that we legislate properly in this House. It is perfectly clear that the provisions that I have only been able to touch on in the limited time available should be left out of this treaty. They also make it clear that this treaty should be abandoned and put in the rubbish dump.

Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief, because other colleagues wish to speak. I want to discuss criminal justice and court matters, so as I have to, I declare my interest as a Crown court recorder and part-time district judge.
	We should be very proud of certain aspects of our criminal justice system. I am very proud that the criminal law in this country is made by this Parliament and by elected Members of Parliament who are accountable to their constituents if they get it wrong. I am proud of the fact that over centuries the common law has developed in this country. It has been developed by independent judges who are not afraid to take on the Executive from time to time. I am proud of the fact that when a citizen of this country walks down their high street, the police have limited rights. The police are individuals merely with a warrant, and they cannot step over the mark; if they do so, they are in difficulty.
	I am proud of the fact that when a person is arrested their rights continue. I am talking about their right to bail; their right to a fair trial; perhaps their right to go before three magistrates in the town in which they live; their right to go before a jury—12 persons chosen at random from the community; and their right to have an independent judge begin his or her summing up by saying to the jury, "Members of the jury, in this case the burden of proof lies on the prosecution throughout and not on the defence, and it is a high standard of proof."
	I am also proud of the fact that in this country there are rights to legal aid and to appeal. There is so much in our current legal system that we have developed over hundreds of years. We are custodians of those rights and we throw them away at our peril. What are we faced with tonight? We can talk about subsidiarity, but I have never really understood that word and I do not think I understand it tonight. We are faced with the prospect of a sea change in our criminal justice system. We are faced with changes that will not happen tomorrow and which may not happen next year or in four or five years' time, but if we are not ever so careful and if we do not guard these rights, the changes may happen in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, and we should be ashamed tonight if we let them develop.
	What could such changes be? Could there be a European public prosecutor? What absolute rubbish that would be. Could there be a European police force, Eurojust or Europol? What the devil do all those words mean? Who can convince me that any of this is better than what we have at the moment in this country? What sort of legal system would we have? It may be codified, but by whom? It would not be codified by people elected to this House. It would be an EU codified legal system. What might it do? It would mean saying goodbye to the jury system. All that could happen, and if it did, it would be arranged by people who are not accountable and who are not elected by the electors in my constituency or anywhere else.
	Let us recognise tonight that we are debating issues of the greatest importance. We are left at the moment with a system in this country of which we are proud. It needs changing now and again, but we change it. It remains a system of which we are fundamentally proud because it recognises the right of the individual to a fair trial in a UK court under laws passed by a UK Parliament. That is what we have, and if anybody asks me whether we should begin to throw it out, I say that they would be mad and wrong to do so.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is making, as usual, a powerful point. He mentioned our ability to address deficiencies in our system, but does he agree that if we were to adopt the provisions in the treaty and were not satisfied with the way in which they were working, we could do nothing about that? We would be lumbered with them for the rest of time, because we would not be able to repeal any of the provisions in the treaty.

Humfrey Malins: That could well happen, whereas at the moment, these matters are in our hands. If we get something wrong, we can change it. If the voters do not like what we do, they can change us. Goodness knows, the gap between the voter and the elected Member of Parliament is wide enough, without widening it further.
	I have spoken for four minutes, and that is long enough. I shall stop speaking, but I must make it clear that I feel very strongly that we should not give away what has served us so well for so long to a system that will be more damaging to the individual than is imaginable.

Bernard Jenkin: I, too, shall be brief.
	The exclusions included in the amendments are very important, for a reason that has not yet been mentioned. I hope that the exclusions will be effective in addressing the problem that I shall describe to the Committee—the way in which the justice and home affairs provisions interact with article 188(l), a new provision that states:
	"The Union may conclude an agreement with one or more third countries or International organisations where the Treaties so provide or where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union's policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties, or is provided for in a legally binding Union act or is likely to affect the common rules or alter their scope...Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States."
	The importance of that provision is that the European Union already concludes international agreements with third countries on matters that are clearly within its competence, such as vehicle homologation, or the standardisation of road vehicles. The reason why the European Union cannot agree extradition treaties with third countries is that extradition is not included in the main part of the treaty, but that will change as we bring justice and home affairs into the purview of the treaties.
	We already have, for example, a common arrest warrant, which is at present a third pillar agreement between the member states. Under this treaty, that will become part of the main body of European community law. That means that the European Union will acquire the competence to agree an international agreement, as a nation state would agree an international agreement, with other nation states on the matter of extradition. Effectively, we would progressively lose from our national jurisdiction the right to agree extradition treaties.

Mark Harper: We will also lose another powerful tool—the ability to hold people to account for the quality of their negotiation. Other hon. Members have mentioned the appalling job that the Government did in negotiating the extradition treaty with the United States. If the European Union did that, we could not change the people who had made a poor job of it. At least we can do that with this Government.

Bernard Jenkin: I am wary of highlighting the deficiency of present agreements, because people will no doubt claim that we would be much more effective if we were all negotiating as one country. However, let us take for example the trade negotiations and the world trade agreement. Provisions that will be very damaging for some of the poorest countries in the world are being agreed through the Doha trade round and the imposition of economic partnership agreements on African countries that are losing their special status, which stretches back through history, with European countries. We could see similar agreements on extradition being agreed with third countries that are not in the interests of this country.
	In fact, we enjoy special arrangements on extradition with a great many countries. We stand to lose those special arrangements under these provisions, and I ask the Minister to confirm in his winding-up speech whether I am right or wrong. With the inclusion of these provisions on justice and home affairs in the main body of the treaty, in conjunction with article 188L— [ Interruption ] —and, of course, with the addition of legal personality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) says from a sedentary position, will we lose control of extradition if the EU chooses to exercise that competence?
	I make a further point about article 188L. Decisions under article 188L are, of course, made by qualified majority voting. So, whereas the arrangement for extradition agreements in the EU is a unanimity provision at the moment, we are effectively conceding to the EU qualified majority voting on extradition. That amounts to an extra concession of qualified majority voting. Moreover, I must point out that, whatever is agreed internationally by the EU by qualified majority voting automatically becomes an exclusive competence of the EU that is enforceable through the European Court of Justice and therefore binding directly on member states. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on this matter, and I hope that he is nodding in full agreement.

Dominic Grieve: I think that I am nodding in full agreement. Uncertainty surrounds the way in which the clause will be interpreted, which gives me cause for considerable concern. It is clear that we have the opt-outs in the domestic context; but, equally, it is clear that we do not have them in respect of EU international relations, which my hon. Friend is highlighting. It will be for the Minister to clarify whether, in fact, if there were an impact on areas where we had opt-ins and opt-outs on EU international relations, we would find ourselves subject to qualified majority voting on them.

Bernard Jenkin: Of course, and at risk of extending my comments by a mere extra minute, I may say that my hon. Friend has raised an extremely interesting issue, and we need an assurance from the Minister. He should give us an absolutely categorical guarantee that this red line will hold and that, where we are not opted into a justice and home affairs provision, there will be no question of the EU concluding an agreement with a third country on behalf of the Union by a qualified majority vote that would, therefore, take into its purview, by direct effect internally, control over that policy, thus removing it from the British Government. I do not think that he can give that assurance, because in the end, as usual, we are in the hands of the European Court of Justice.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I rise to support the amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) from the Front Bench and the amendments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whose knowledge of these matters is more extensive than that of any other Member, as again demonstrated in this evening's debate. I was also struck by the short speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who correctly defined the essence of parliamentary democracy: mistakes can be corrected and we can reverse legislation that turns out to be wrong or damaging. All Governments—not just this one—make mistakes, but the House, either in the same Parliament or subsequent to an election, can alter the law. We cannot do that if the law is made in another jurisdiction and the procedure for amending or changing it is incredibly long-winded, cumbersome and way beyond our reach.

Philip Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem with the opt-in provisions, which are much vaunted by the Government, is that once somebody has opted in, there is no mechanism ever to opt out again? Once we are in, we are in—even if a subsequent Government wishes to get us out again.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and such provisions will render general elections something of a farce. A political party will advance propositions on criminal justice, policing, immigration or asylum, but the electors will know quite well that, if its politicians are elected, they will be unable to make the changes or pass the laws because they are all made in the EU. The question "Why vote?" then becomes unanswerable, and the public have realised that. The Government and the Electoral Commission take an awful lot of time and trouble to try to persuade people to vote. They are putting voting booths in supermarkets—

Nicholas Winterton: Tesco.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, Tesco, and people are being encouraged to vote online. The real problem is that people will vote only when that vote makes a difference, and it will not make a difference if the political party that is elected cannot carry out its manifesto commitments.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not know whether my point will be welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, but CREST—the Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends, an academic group—has shown a correlation between declining voter turnout and diminishing differences between the parties. If people feel that there is no choice, they will not vote. If there is a real choice, they will vote. I would like there to be a real Conservative party and a really democratic socialist Labour party; then people would come out to vote.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman puts it better than I could. In a general election, we all engage in a contest, and each party has its own programme. An essential component of the process is that if we are elected, we can carry out that programme. If we cannot, democracy dies. That is why we are debating not a treaty but democracy itself.
	I have tabled an amendment and a new clause. The amendment, No. 26, would disapply justice and home affairs from the treaty as implemented in this country. I tabled it because it is not necessary to have a new treaty covering those issues. Nobody—certainly not the Minister—has shown us that the intergovernmental method that we have under the treaty of Rome as amended is failing in any way. What provisions are we unable to agree to under the existing machinery? I believe in intergovernmentalism because it retains essential democratic control and accountability while allowing one to be internationalist in one's ambitions, and I am an internationalist. I always have been, and so has this country. We are members of many organisations that seek to tackle world problems.
	The Government's case seems to be that anyone who believes in tackling crime and terrorism has to be in favour of the treaty. That is just not true. The rest of the world does not belong to anything like the European Union; those around the rest of the world tackle world problems as they always have done—by making alliances, seeking friends, and working with other countries to tackle common difficulties. That is how the rest of the world operates—intergovernmentally. Nothing convinces me that that is not working perfectly satisfactorily, or that we need to pool our law-making ability to tackle problems. After all, on police co-operation, Interpol long predates Europol. I find the debate curiously Eurocentric. Little Europeans are making the case for more European powers, but my horizons are global. I want to work with all countries of the world to tackle common problems.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne)—he has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is present, agrees with him—advanced a curious proposition. He said that we need the provision to help British people living in other countries. We are being invited to give up all our powers over laws affecting our constituents in return for a partial, vestigial influence over laws affecting some British people living in other countries.
	That seems to me to be a very bad deal.
	Apart from anything else, I am not convinced that Executive efficiency is more important than democracy. The European Union is incredibly inefficient. The common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the European Union budget are not good models for a common crime and justice policy, but crucially it is the loss of public control and the lack of accountability that are breeding resentment and disillusionment with politics and politicians which worry me so much.
	The treaty does not cure that, but makes it worse. It defies instructions given at the start of the reform process. I go back to 2001 when, in the Laeken declaration, Heads of Government meeting in that town in Belgium identified the problem—the growing gap between the European Union and its citizens. It instructed those who sat on the Convention on the Future of Europe to design a Europe closer to its citizens. How is that possible if more decisions are taken away from the citizens and away from their national Parliaments to be decided in remote institutions in the European Union, which are the source of the problem in the first place?
	The treaty abolishes the intergovernmental system of Maastricht and puts in its place a supranational system, which is further from the public. That goes all the way back to the Convention. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) will remember that the British Government were on the side of intergovernmentalism in those days. The Government tabled hundreds of amendments to try to stop the transfer of power and authority away from national Parliaments, but they failed. In the narrower sector of justice and home affairs, the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), tabled 40 amendments, 38 of which were turned down.
	So we know that the Government do not agree with the provisions in the treaty, because the treaty is virtually the same as the constitution which was the product of that Convention. I shall give one or two examples. Article 69B will give the European Union, if the treaty is ratified, the power to establish the definition of criminal offences and the sanctions applying to them—that is, the punishments. The power of the state to punish will be applied in this country in accordance with rules that we do not make.
	The article specifies categories of serious crime, such as terrorism, corruption, computer crime and organised crime. Those are wide definitions and are not recognised in British law, a point that I made in an intervention. "Organised crime" is almost impossibly wide. There is no category of crime called "organised crime" in our jurisdiction, but we will import that into our criminal justice system via the treaty.
	We had a short debate earlier this evening on the European public prosecutor. He will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment those accused of crime against the financial interests of the European Union. I have a much simpler solution to the financial problems of the European Union, which is to turn the tap off. If the European Court of Auditors in its 14th report next year still finds that much of the money goes missing, it should just stop paying it. Member states would soon start listening to the European Court of Auditors if it had that power.

Graham Brady: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that if he were in a position to turn the tap off, that may, under the provisions, become an offence against the financial interests of the Union and he might be prosecuted?

David Heathcoat-Amory: We could all be in court if the treaty goes through; my hon. Friend has made a shrewd and accurate point.
	I have the Government on my side again. We know that the Government wanted to remove completely from the treaty any reference to the European public prosecutor, even though the office could be brought in only by unanimity. The right hon. Member for Neath, who represented the Government in the negotiations, said:
	"Unanimity does not mean that this article can be accepted".
	He rightly saw that once it was in a treaty, we would be implicitly committed to it; although we might have a veto, it would become a question not of whether but when. The right hon. Gentleman wanted all references out. My modest amendment would simply do what the Government tried to do in the Convention on the Future of Europe.
	I shall give one other example of an article to which the Government also objected. Article 69F states:
	"The Union shall establish police cooperation involving all the Member States' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services".
	That is not a permissive power, but an instruction—the word "shall" is used. In the phrase "specialised law enforcement services" I recognise a reference to MI5; our Security Service is to be brought into the requirement to co-operate with other member states. There is a special relationship between our security and secret services and the United States, and it dates back to shortly after the second world war. In place of that, we are being mandated to co-operate with all 26 other member states. More than that, the power—and it will all be done by qualified majority voting—includes
	"the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information".
	Given that even this Government cannot be trusted with the data under their control—after all, Revenue and Customs lost 25 million files, affecting everybody in the country—we can imagine what may happen when even more sensitive information has to be exchanged with 26 other countries all over the European Union, with varying standards of control over it. We are trying to put right what has gone wrong in this country; it would be highly irresponsible to create a further leakage of information as far as Bulgaria, Romania, Malta and right up into the Baltic. Is that really a sensible way to proceed?

Bernard Jenkin: Would it be true to say that if an identity card were introduced to this country, it could come under the control of the European Union?

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is certainly true that in the treaty there are many references to the exchange of information. It is bad enough that we will be centralising data here; I am against an identity card because I do not trust the competence of even our own Government to preserve and protect citizens' information. If the data could be shared with 450 million other people, that is still another argument against it.

Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the European Union is profound. Is he not stating in so many words that our country—the United Kingdom—is no longer a sovereign, independent country?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I believe that if the treaty is ratified we will have undermined our powers of self-government to the extent that we could be considered to be in a colonial situation. I have visited other members of the Commonwealth who have more powers over their legislation concerning immigration, asylum and criminal justice than we, the mother country, will have under this treaty. That is an extraordinary irony of history.
	Under the terms of the treaty, the whole area of justice and home affairs becomes a shared competence of the European Union—that is to say, the European Union and the member states will have powers to legislate. Crucially, however, it is asserted in article 2 that when the EU legislates in this area, member states will lose the ability to do so. In other words, we have not a shared competence but a residual role. That is profoundly important, particularly because attaching to this is the provision—

James Clappison: Is it also my right hon. Friend's understanding that where the European Court of Justice interprets legislation in which the European Union has come to occupy a competence, that, too, will be binding on every country in the EU, including this one where it has been opted in?

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. As I said in a previous debate, I do not regard the European Court of Justice as neutral in these matters. It is a federal institution in the way that the Supreme Court in the United States is a federal institution. Shortly after the American constitution was signed and ratified, the Supreme Court, under the famous Chief Justice, John Marshall, started to interpret states' rights in a way that was prejudicial to those rights. That led to the consolidation of federal powers, to such an extent that about 60 years later, in 1861, the federal Government were able to declare war on a state—South Carolina—that attempted to secede. That was inconceivable when the constitution was drawn up, but that is what happened. The Jeffersonian settlement was undermined by a Supreme Court that was part of the federal structure. I see something parallel happening with the powers of the European Court of Justice, which, I remind the House, will have an obligation in the treaty to practise "mutual sincere cooperation", not with member states but with the other institutions of the European Union. The observations about the European Court of Justice and its future role are well made.

Philip Davies: Does this not relate to subsidiarity? Subsidiarity does not mean that nation states can decide which powers to pass up to the European Union but that the European Union decides which powers, if any, it will be gracious enough to hand down to national Parliaments.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. Moreover, the final court that decides a subsidiarity case will be the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to the role of national Parliaments in the context of subsidiarity attempting to tell them what they should do in this area. The European Scrutiny Committee correctly observed that this House does not take instructions under any treaty. We are self-governing; we lay down our own rules of procedure. Whether or not we decide to look into matters of subsidiarity is purely a matter for us. We should resent becoming the creatures of a treaty and therefore of the European Union, as is the case under this document.

George Howarth: I followed closely the right hon. Gentleman's comparison between the American constitution and the effect of the treaty. The parallel, if he takes it to its logical conclusion, is presumably that the European Union could have the power to declare war on France. Is that a serious proposition that he is making?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No. If the right hon. Gentleman was following my argument, he would know that I was simply illustrating a point. Powers in a treaty become subject to interpretation by a supreme court, and if that supreme court is part of the central authority it starts to see matters and interpret treaty provisions in a way that is detrimental to the interests of member states, in this case, and in favour of the interests of the central institution. We already see that activism in the European Court of Justice. I was pointing out that that process in America undermined the rights of states and asserted the powers of the federal Government to such an extent that they—the federal Government—declared war on a seceding state. I do not suppose that that will ever happen in the EU, but I was making the point that an accretion of powers to the centre aided by an activist court is happening in the EU in the same way as it did in the USA. I do not want to push the other parallels to breaking point.

Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend's observations on the connection with the Supreme Court under Marshall draw an interesting parallel. Those occurrences turned on the interpretation of the constitution and the words "we the people". The phrase "we the people" overrode the rights of the states, and it was through that entry in the constitution that the relationship was changed between the federal Government and the states.

David Heathcoat-Amory: That is my proposition. Ultimately, the treaty is about the comparative powers of member states vis-à-vis the European Union. By "member states", I mean in particular their representative Parliaments and, by extension, the powers of the people they represent. In my judgment, that balance is profoundly upset by the treaty—and never more clearly than in criminal justice, policing, immigration and asylum. With those few scattered thoughts, I strongly support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.

Peter Lilley: The defence of the provisions that we are seeking to amend has so far fallen to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). He speaks with some authority since, if the Liberals applied proportional representation to themselves, he would be leader 49 per cent. of the time. His defence—I take it that he is acting as an outrider for the Government—was that the measures are essential in order to export some good higher standards from this country to other countries in the European Community. Up to 750,000 ex-patriot Britons live in those countries, many of us travel to them, and many of us work in them.
	It is normally said that Eurosceptics take a rather negative view of foreigners and foreign Governments. On this occasion, the Liberal Democrats and the Euro-enthusiasts were working on the assumption that Johnny Foreigner needs a little help from us and that the benighted populations of our fellow member countries of the European Community do not have adequate legal systems but need them to be overridden by a supranational authority. In the interests of those countries and of the British people living in them, we must therefore hand over power over our own legal authorities to those supranational bodies: the European Court of Justice, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
	Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. If we can export the superior systems of this country—that is the view of the Liberal Democrats—to those partner states, presumably they can export their power and influence to us. That has been a concern to my party.

Kelvin Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. Does he agree that people in many continental countries do not trust their Governments as much as people here trust us? That may be surprising, but I think that it is well established, as illustrated by the state that Italy is in at present. It is one reason why people in other member states are more prepared to hand authority over to a supranational body than we are.

Peter Lilley: That may be true. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but it is not necessary for my argument.
	It must be said that there is a tendency among Conservative Members to assume that we have an especially virtuous legal system. I am very proud of it and very attached to it, but we must not think that it is superior to all the other systems in the EU. Each country has its own legal system that it has developed over time, according to its own personality. Each legal system has its own coherence and checks and balances. When we start to legislate supranationally and to export elements of one legal system into another, the danger is that we create incoherence and destroy the balance of those other systems. We also risk wrecking the balance and coherence of our own system.
	It is perfectly possible that the systems used abroad are in their own way just as good, or just as well adapted to the needs, wishes and personalities of their peoples, as ours is. It is not necessary for any country to destroy the coherence and balance of its legal system, but what is especially odd about the Liberal position is that it is assumed that the primary job of this place is to improve the legislative structures of other countries, and that that is more important than maintaining control and authority over our own legislative system.
	I tend to think that a person who goes abroad must accept the system that governs where he or she lives and works. I have been the chairman of a German company, and I accepted that German law applied. I have a holiday home in France, and I accept that French law applies there. When I worked in Spain and Belgium, I assumed that those countries' laws apply there. I have never thought that it was the job of the British Government to set up the laws in other countries, and certainly not if doing so meant giving up the power to determine our own legal structures and laws.
	Although common law evolves in this country, a key part of our system is that Parliament can change laws if the courts interpret them in a way that we do not expect. We can do the same if circumstances change and the implications of a law become different from what they were when they were laid down. The sort of changes set out in the treaty, if they are not amended as we propose, mean that we will not be able to change laws in response to circumstances and in reaction to experience. We will hand over to others powers that we and this place traditionally have had, and that is why I call on the House to accept the amendments and to reject the proposals in the treaty and the Bill.

Graham Brady: I am delighted to have an opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I know that a number of colleagues would like to speak, but we are all keen to hear what the Minister will say in response to the powerful points that have been made.
	Many hon. Members of all parties have made important contributions to the debate. It would be invidious to name them all, but the early speech by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was very powerful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) also made an important contribution.
	What seems clear is that the provisions are all part of a process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, that process progressed via the Laeken declaration and the convention, which was intended to bring the European Union closer to the people, to reduce the gap in democracy and deal with the fact that people feel that they should have some say in the decisions made for them. But at each turn, we have seen a greater accretion of powers at the centre.
	The treaty not only sets out new powers, responsibilities and areas of competence but goes beyond that by setting out further aspects of the ratchet that would increase the powers of the EU in the area of justice and home affairs. That point was made tellingly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who spoke about the way in which the enhanced co-operation procedures can work to make something seem inevitable, so that the pressure is then on for other member states to accede to it. We see that in all the provisions on policing and judicial co-operation, and in provisions relating to Eurojust and the public prosecutor, which give new powers to the EU.
	The European public prosecutor will be able to initiate prosecutions through the competent national authorities. I do not know how that procedure can work. I do not know of any precedent for it, or of any mechanism through which it can operate. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how he believes that such a process can take place. How will the relevant competent authorities in the UK—presumably the Crown Prosecution Service—take instruction from the office of the European prosecutor in order to pursue prosecutions through the British courts? That is not clear in the text of the treaty and it has not been made clear at any point during the debate, but that matter must be clarified.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is developing a most interesting point. Would he direct his attention to the European Court of Justice? That court is an animal of the European Union; its interests are entirely those of the Union. How can we rely upon it to provide an independent judgment in the interests of the United Kingdom when it is interested not in an independent opinion, but merely the views of the corporate European Union?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his customary trenchant and powerful way. It is not just those of us in our party, or those who care about our national sovereignty on the Labour Benches, who are concerned about the activism of the European Court of Justice. Member states, the President of Austria and the former President of Germany have expressed concerns about the way in which the European Court of Justice can extend the remit and powers of the European Union beyond what appears to have been agreed by member states. In that area, as in so many others, we have a very open-ended set of provisions with little definition.
	During our earlier exchanges, we expressed concern about loose language and loose definitions. An example worth reflecting on is in article 69D, which refers to the activities of Eurojust and its scope of operation. It is made clear that Eurojust has the capacity to initiate prosecutions in relation to offences against the financial interests of the Union, but it states that it can initiate prosecutions
	"particularly those relating to offences against the financial interests of the Union".
	That makes it clear in terms that the provision includes things other than offences relating to the financial interests of the European Union.
	I said at the outset that I would not detain the Committee long. I am anxious to hear the Minister's comments and I hope that he will have some answers to the many points and questions that have been raised in the debate.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to respond to the various points that have been made in Committee and delighted that you, Sir Alan, are overseeing our proceedings.
	Before dealing with the wider points that the lead amendment makes, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and not only for her participation in all the debates this evening and previously. I want to put it on record for the first time that, as of today, she is the proud owner of the German Order of Merit. She is not easily embarrassed, but I see that she is now.
	With the Committee's indulgence, I intend to allow time for the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) to respond to my comments. Let me deal with the lead amendment. Justice and home affairs in general and police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters in particular are subjects of great sensitivity. The UK has therefore negotiated a comprehensive opt-out arrangement, under which we have a choice, as the UK Government. First, we can choose whether to opt into new justice and home affairs proposals. Secondly, we can choose whether to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction over existing third pillar measures at the end of the transitional period.
	The UK has always acknowledged the important role that the ECJ plays in the European institutional context. It has always been recognised that there is no point in reaching agreements that do not stick in practice. That is why the ECJ has been so important in developing, for example, the legal infrastructure that governs the internal market.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: With your indulgence, Sir Alan, I shall give way a couple of times and then make progress.

Peter Lilley: Can the Minister give a single example of agreements made under the third pillar that have not stuck and, therefore, need to be transferred for adjudication under the ECJ?

Jim Murphy: I shall do so happily. There are 82 proposals under third pillar consideration. Proposal 78, which deals with the transfer of sentenced prisoners, has been blocked because the Polish Government have not agreed to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked for one example and I have provided one. I hope that that reassures him.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the ECJ has made two recent rulings against trade unionists in Finland and Sweden, and that it is starting to resemble an organisation that serves the interests of big business and neo-liberal philosophy, not those of working people?

Jim Murphy: I am not certain that that is the case. We believe in an economy that is flexible and liberal but contains a core component of social Europe. The ECJ can play an important part in that.  [Interruption.]

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is too much sedentary noise in Committee. I should like to hear the Minister's reply and I understand that hon. Members wish to hear it, too.

Jim Murphy: I want to make it clear that the benefits of justice and home affairs co-operation are in the UK's national interest. Our participation in EU agreements on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters is only one example. Such co-operation is vital in helping our police services fight terrorism and organised crime. There are prominent examples of the importance of the European arrest warrant.
	There were Eurosceptic and Euro-isolationist sniggers about Europol, with people asking, "What the heck is it?" and so on, but it has often helped disrupt serious and organised crime, ranging from armed robbery to child pornography. Europol's contribution has been welcomed by the Home Affairs Committee—a cross-party Committee—and as an important contributor to the matters in hand.
	We have also secured opt-in arrangements on transitional measures, which are important in the context of the lead amendment. We are clear that, by securing maximum flexibility, the Government have achieved a good deal for Britain. We have ensured that we have the right to choose where to participate in justice and home affairs co-operation and that ECJ jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the UK against our will.

Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: No, I will not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have a short amount of time this evening. The fact is that in yesterday's debate I gave way on dozens of occasions.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: No, I will not. The hon. Member for Rayleigh will speak at the end of this debate.

Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I regret saying this, but we addressing amendments in Committee, but the Minister has not yet alluded to a single one.

The Chairman: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of what either the Minister or any other hon. Member says. The Minister must be allowed to answer the debate in his own way, and he has a limited amount of time left in which to do so.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Could you explain to the Minister that if he wants more time, the Committee will vote him more time? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] He cannot take refuge in the shortage of time for his failure to answer.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He has put his view on the record and there will be opportunities through the usual channels to ensure that representations are made for more time if that is what some hon. Members believe should happen.

Jim Murphy: Turning to amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 212 and 136—

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: No, I will not. [Hon. Members: "Give way!"]
	Those amendments would prevent the UK from implementing the treaty provisions relating to judicial co-operation in criminal matters. That is both contrary to the UK's national interest and unnecessary, as the UK opt-out applies to those provisions.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you rule on whether the Minister is trampling on the traditions and procedures of the House?

The Chairman: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—

Nicholas Winterton: But he is!

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect the Chair to rule on any such thing. The Minister is replying to the debate. It will be for the convenience of everyone if he is allowed to do so in his own way and in a manner that is audible.

Jim Murphy: I gave way on dozens of occasions yesterday, but in the interests of keeping the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) calm and happy, I will give way on one last occasion.

Dominic Grieve: What I seek is clarification of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised about the power of the European Union to reach agreements with outside states under qualified majority voting on areas such as extradition and how that would impact on areas where the United Kingdom had decided not to opt in. The question is very important and the Minister must have the answer.

Jim Murphy: If I had known that the question was so straightforward, I would have happily given way earlier. The answer is that if the UK chooses not to opt in, we cannot then be bound by international agreements that the EU enters into in areas where we have not opted in. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to make that clear.
	On amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 212 and 136, without the European arrest warrant, extraditing criminals and terrorists from other member states would be a much lengthier, more complex and more expensive process. The warrant was the first mutual recognition measure, but we have since agreed others, which are in the process of being implemented, to improve the collection and exchange of evidence and to enforce financial penalties and confiscation orders between member states. The judicial co-operation chapter of the Lisbon treaty also recognises that mutual recognition, rather than harmonisation, which is an important point recognised in the Law Society report published six hours ago.
	On amendments Nos. 11, 137 and 213, in moving the provisions on policing co-operation and Europol from a system of unanimity in Council and consultation with the European Parliament to qualified majority voting and co-decision, the UK has secured two key safeguards.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: No.
	First, we have extended our opt-in to apply to those provisions. That means that we cannot be obliged to participate in such measures where we deem them not to be in our interests.
	Secondly, unanimity and consultation are retained for measures concerning operational co-operation for determining the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of one member state may operate in another territory, with its agreement.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I will not give way further. I have already said so.
	Operational action by—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

The Chairman: Order. It must be fairly clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Minister is not going to give way—

Bernard Jenkin: I know why.

The Chairman: Order. That is not helpful at this stage.

Jim Murphy: Europol is by no means a new concept. Its establishment was agreed in the Maastricht treaty and it was formally created by an EU convention that came into force in October 1998.
	I shall turn now to amendment No. 26. European Union co-operation in the area of freedom, security and justice has been part of the treaties since Maastricht. It enables us to work together to tackle common threats such as terrorism and organised crime. It enables us to put into effect practical measures that have an immediate and positive impact—

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Sir Alan. My point of order is very simple. The present arrest warrant already provides for extradition—

The Chairman: Order. That is an abuse of our procedures. The hon. Gentleman is taking up time on a bogus point of order when the Minister is trying to reply to the debate. I have to leave it to the Minister.

Jim Murphy: Turning to—

John Gummer: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is very difficult for Conservative Members to hear the Minister. He is rushing his answer because he does not have time to give it. Could you please ask whether we could have a bit more time, so that he can say what he has to say in a way that most of us can understand?

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are governed by the motion that the House passed yesterday, and that I am no more responsible for the style of the speech of an hon. Member than I am for its content.

Jim Murphy: I shall turn to new clause 4. The UK benefits hugely from our participation in EU agreements on police and criminal judicial co-operation. That co-operation is vital in helping our police services to fight terrorism and organised crime. The new clause would require the Government to opt out of all existing third pillar measures that had not been amended or replaced before the end of the five-year transitional period. During that period, the institutions will, as far as possible, amend or repeal existing third pillar measures. The UK will be able to decide whether to opt into amended measures. Six months before the end of the five-year period, the UK will have the choice whether to accept ECJ jurisdiction over any remaining, existing third pillar measure. This provision, which gives the UK a choice on each and every occasion in respect of justice and home affairs as to whether to accept ECJ jurisdiction in such cases, was a significant negotiating success for the United Kingdom, as the Home Secretary said earlier.
	On new clause 7, the principles of direct applicability and direct effect are nothing new. ECJ regulations and decisions have had this effect since the treaty of Rome in 1957. In opposing the amendments before the Committee this evening, we are clear that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would deprive the UK of the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We also oppose amendment No. 26, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells, which would leave the UK to deal with threats in isolation. The United Kingdom Government are not willing to accept that.
	On amendments Nos. 11 and 137, Europol was established by Maastricht, but the amendments would prevent effective co-operation between police forces across Europe. New clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), would require the UK to decide now whether to opt out of the remaining third pillar measures. Amendment No. 135, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, would deprive the United Kingdom of the benefits of the movement of civil liberties and civil justice in respect of freedom across the European Union.
	Amendment No. 207 was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. If passed, it would prevent the UK ratification of the treaty, and its ratification across the European Union. The amendment would delete a Committee attended by officials who work to ensure that justice in home affairs and co-operation in a coherent and effective way are possible.
	The amendments before us this evening would turn the Opposition's political isolation, which we have already spoken about, into entrenched institutional isolation. A once great party that helped to lead debate on Europe in the past has been scrabbling around on amendments to abolish a Committee that is attended by officials in the mistaken belief that it represents some great threat to our justice and home affairs processes. I invite Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments; otherwise, I encourage my hon. Friends to oppose them.

Mark Francois: I realise that in the few moments available I cannot reprise the whole of yesterday's debate on the business motion. However, I will briefly remind the Committee that we argued very strongly yesterday that one day was nowhere near enough to debate the issues of criminal justice, policing and home affairs that are at stake under the Lisbon treaty. We have been more than borne out by the way in which the debate, particularly on the amendments, has been conducted. Even with the switch in timing that the Government allowed, a number of Back Benchers were still standing at the end of this group of amendments who did not have the chance to put their points to the Committee. It should also be noted that we will not reach the second or third group of amendments—including, critically, the group on the matters of borders, visas, asylum and migration. I remind the Government that we argued strongly for having a separate day to debate those measures. Members were promised by no less than the Prime Minister an opportunity for "line-by-line scrutiny" of the treaty of Lisbon. Given that promise, this has not been an auspicious beginning.
	Let me now turn to the Government's case. If the Government have such a powerful case in opposing our amendment No. 214, why is it that out of a party of more than 350 MPs, not a single Labour Back Bencher made a speech in defence of the Government's position? In fact, for large parts of the debate on the amendments, the Labour Benches were almost completely deserted. So much for line-by-line scrutiny of the treaty of Lisbon! The fact is— [Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip says that Labour Members agree with it; well, if so, why not have the guts to turn up and argue their case?
	The collapse of the third pillar into the first pillar is a major change encompassed by the Lisbon treaty and it has very severe implications for our system of criminal justice. That was pointed out by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least in a passionate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Indeed, it was also bravely pointed out by several Labour Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the redoubtable hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). This is a major, major change, yet the Government are attempting to argue that it is just some minor technical modification. It is not. It potentially gives the European Court of Justice jurisdiction in these areas, which it has never had before, and the abolition of a veto is no way compensated for by a combination of an opt-in and an emergency brake.
	The Government had 40 objections to the constitution—effectively what they are now signing up to. Two of those objections were accepted—played 40; won two; drawn none; lost 38—yet the Home Secretary described it as a negotiating triumph. My God, what would have happened if we had done badly and lost! Why do we not have the Danish protocol, which would give us far greater protection in these matters than the one we have been given? We are utterly unconvinced by the Government's answer on all—
	 It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, The Chairman  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order s [ 28 January and  this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 353.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Article 69A, TEC (TFEU), relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
	(ii) '.— [Mr. Francois.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 352.

Question accordingly negatived.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Khan. ]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Financial Services and Markets

That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 3510), dated 13th December 2007, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Financial Management

That this House takes note of an unnumbered explanatory memorandum from HM Treasury dated 8th January 2008, European Court of Auditors' Annual Report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2006 together with the institutions' replies, European Union Documents No. 11724/07 and Addenda 1-2, Protection of the financial interests of the Communities—Fight against fraud—Annual Report 2006, unnumbered explanatory memorandum from HM Treasury dated 9th August 1997, European Anti-Fraud Office—seventh activity report for the period 1st January to 31st December 2006, No. 13117/07 and Addendum 1, Commission report on the follow-up to Discharge Decisions (Summary)—Council recommendations, and No. 13118/07 and Addendum 1, Commission Report on the follow-up to 2005 Discharge Decisions (Summary)—European Parliament Resolutions; and supports the Government's promotion of measures to improve the level of assurance given on the Community budget. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Misuse of Fireworks (Essex)

Bob Spink: I should like to present an important petition, organised by Faye Guyat, that addresses the issue of the nuisance and real harm caused to people and animals by the antisocial and selfish use of fireworks. Although a sound private Member's Bill on the subject became law in 2003, improvements can still be made, and there are still real problems in our community. I congratulate and thank every person who signed the petition. It states:
	The Petition of residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that freely available fireworks present danger and nuisance to people, property and animals and we believe that the suffering fireworks cause and the cost to emergency services and individuals are totally avoidable; whilst we believe this, we do not wish to prevent the enjoyment of traditional festivals—and therefore we urge the Government to amend the firework bill.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to restrict fireworks to licensed organised displays only at fixed times of the year, to include garden parties in the restricted category, to reduce the decibel limit to a maximum of 85db for all fireworks and to make it illegal to use or posses fireworks without a licence.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000115]

ECO-TOWN (HARBOROUGH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Khan.]

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. He knows that I have been attempting to get Ministers to account to the House—and, through me, to my constituents—for an utterly unexplained piece of Government policy. He must have been driven mad by my persistence. I do not wish to draw Mr. Speaker into the issue of the merits of my arguments, or any of those that may emerge this evening from the mouth of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), but he has come to the aid of a constituency Member who has a grievance to express on behalf of his constituents, and thus has enabled the House to perform one of its proper constitutional functions. I thank him for that, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), whose constituents are as affected by the issue as mine, as a result of boundary changes. I am also grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and to his colleague, the new Minister for Housing, who has agreed to meet my hon. Friend and me very soon.
	Tonight is the first occasion on which the question of the rightness or wrongness of the Government's eco-town proposals has been exposed to anything resembling a public debate. There is somewhere in the Government's digestive system a list of 57 eco-town sites which, we are told, will by some process not yet made known to us be reduced to 10. The specific subject of tonight's debate, the Co-op's proposal to build a so-called eco-town the size of Hinckley or a town twice the size of Market Harborough within Harborough district and for it to be one of the 10 chosen sites, has never been debated in Parliament or in the chambers of Leicestershire county council, Harborough district council, Leicester city council, Oadby and Wigston borough council, the East Midlands regional assembly or the East Midlands Development Agency.
	That of itself is extraordinary, as the Prime Minister's eco-town policy, which was announced late last year, has the potential to do a lot of good, although it also has the potential to do a lot of harm. If this is such a good idea, as the Government must believe it is, why have they discouraged discussion on the public stage and confined outside input to meetings such as the one held last Friday in Market Harborough, attended only by officers of Harborough district council and civil servants from the Department for Communities and Local Government?
	At that meeting a civil servant from the DCLG grandly opined that there is no over-supply of housing in Leicestershire, and added that there is still demand to be met. Is that the opinion of someone who has been to my constituency before, or is it the imperial prejudice of some Whitehall mandarin who thinks he knows best? He sounds like a man from the 19th century Colonial Office who spends his waking hours drawing lines across maps of far-away places.
	Before I am accused of advancing nothing more than a nimby argument, it is worth asking whether that person, who presumably advises the Minister, has ever taken the trouble to see for himself the land in question and how it relates to its hinterland, urban and rural, or taken into account the fact that 80,000 new dwellings are already in the plans under the regional plan for Leicester and Leicestershire in the next 18 years, which will mean 7,000 new dwellings for Harborough alone. If the proposal goes through, we will have to withstand and absorb an additional 15,000 to 20,000 new houses, which will mean a new town of perhaps 40,000 to 50,000 inhabitants.
	Arrogantly to treat Leicestershire as though it were no more than a geographical expression is to fail utterly to understand why the proposal is so flawed and why it will cause a lot more harm than good. Each district within the county is different from the next; each has a different relationship to the city in the middle of the county and to its district and county neighbours. Harborough is the biggest district in terms of area, but it is one of the least well served in terms of public infrastructure and infrastructure funding, particularly with regard to public transport and road systems. Outside its farming economy, it is a prosperous area, with high levels of skilled labour, home ownership, employment and car ownership—the last a necessity for business and leisure purposes. The unemployment rate in my constituency, within both Harborough district and the borough of Oadby and Wigston, is under 1 per cent. The same low rate applies to my hon. Friend's constituency, Rutland and Melton. I would not be surprised if the rate in the villages that will be swamped by the proposal is even lower.
	The detail of the proposal and the process by which it will be resolved, however, be it for or against, is a total mystery to me as the MP for Harborough, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, to the county councillors for the eco-town site, Dr. Kevin Feltham and Mr. Simon Galton, as well as to affected Harborough district councillors and to councillors from neighbouring authorities whose constituents will be affected by the eco-town.
	Let me add to the background of this extraordinary state of affairs. The Co-operative Wholesale Society or CWS, through its many tentacles—I am not being legally precise—is not just the owner and manager of shops, funeral services and a bank, or just the supporter of Labour MPs, but a large agricultural landowner. In addition to farmland elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it owns through one of its divisions just under 5,000 acres of farmland, the Stoughton estate, between the A6 Market Harborough to Leicester road and the A47 Uppingham to Leicester road. This farming estate lies about 5 to 8 miles south and east of the city of Leicester. It is classic Leicestershire farmland, partly arable, partly grazing, and it lies on some of the most attractive rolling acres of Leicestershire. It sits within about eight or nine parishes, some encompassing quite big communities such as the villages of Great Glen, Thurnby and Bushy, which are now in reality one village, and Houghton on the Hill, each with populations of between 1,000 and 3,000, as well as some much smaller villages such as Little Stretton, which has a population of about 10, Great Stretton, Burton Overy, Gaulby, Frisby and Stoughton, whose populations vary between the high tens to the mid-hundreds.
	When I became the MP for Harborough in 1992 the Co-op ran an 800 to 1,000 dairy cow milking unit on the estate. It has since closed because the economics of dairy farming no longer allowed it. Of course, the economics of farming across the board in mixed-farming areas such as mine have become increasingly difficult in the past decade or so; it is not surprising that enterprising farmers look for opportunities to maximise the return on their capital from outside farming. Development is an obvious solution, and the Co-op cannot be accused of avoiding the obvious.
	When I succeeded Sir John Farr in the early 1990s, he had been, and I soon became, engaged with our constituents from across the seat, but particularly those in the part of the constituency that I am talking about, in beating off a proposal from the Co-op to build a new town on the very same farming estate. In those days, of course, it was not called an eco-town—the phrase had not been invented—but the proposal was accompanied by some attractive brochures with colour pictures of birds, bees and other flora and fauna.
	We were bombarded with public relations material from the Co-op and with political pressure from the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who wanted the proposal to come up with an outer-Leicester ring road across the Co-op's land to relieve traffic congestion in his constituency. He had a perfectly legitimate interest in making the case for the outer ring road to help his constituents, and the Co-op wanted, entirely legitimately, to maximise the return on its money that was tied up in the land. Farming houses is more lucrative than farming crops or cattle.

Keith Vaz: I strongly support what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. He feels that his constituents have not been consulted; as one whose constituency neighbours his, I can say that my constituents have not been consulted about the issue either.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think that I speak out of turn in saying that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) takes a similar view on behalf of his constituents. Furthermore, Leicester city council is extremely concerned about the proposal.
	In the early 1990s, we were successful in getting the Co-op to withdraw its proposal. It took a lot of effort and time, but eventually it backed off. I was not surprised when I learned towards the end of last year that the Co-op had decided to have another go, this time using the prefix "eco" to give the application added appeal. I attended a briefing given by the Co-op in Market Harborough for Harborough district councillors and me. This time we were shown not a brochure, but a PowerPoint slide show. Much emphasis was put on the carbon-neutral aspects of the project and how it would create 12,000 new jobs. The Co-op did not say, but we knew, that it has a parallel application for what is called a SUE, or sustainable urban extension, for 5,000 houses, pushing out from Oadby in my constituency on to the same land. It is covering all its bases.

David Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the anonymous officials pushing such projects ought to be named so that they can be made accountable? I am thinking of the project in Kingston on Soar in the constituency of Rushcliffe; that has a huge impact on Leicestershire, particularly on the village of Kegworth. The issue is not restricted to just one party; the Conservative-controlled county council is imposing a so-called sustainable urban extension on the town of Coalville in my constituency.

Edward Garnier: I am perfectly happy for there to be greater publicity about that issue, but it is the Minister and the Government, through the House of Commons, who should be accountable. I cannot see civil servants; I can see the Minister, who is here to speak for his Government.
	I fear that the Co-op must have been somewhat taken aback by the universally unenthusiastic response that it received, not least because its explanation to us was wholly devoid of detail. Its representatives said that they could not tell us too much because of the need to maintain commercial confidentiality. From the little that we could discover, however, it seemed that the project would have a devastating effect on my constituency. However, it seemed likely that those representing the area would have no say or very little say in the decision-making process.
	Yes, I accept that at the moment Harborough is only one of 57 applicant sites, and we may not end up in the shortlist of 10. However, neither I nor anyone else whose interests will be adversely affected by the proposal has any idea of how we can influence the decision. The Co-op's development manager and public affairs director have given a further, separate briefing to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton here in the House of Commons. In part they told me about, and in part they pleaded with me to appreciate, the benefits of their scheme. However, they would again not give me any details for fear of losing such commercial confidence as there was in their plans. I was not convinced by that or any other of their arguments, although I told them that they had a perfect right to advance such arguments.
	No matter how pure the Co-op's motives, I am speaking in a democratic and information vacuum, and all the indications do not allow for much optimism. It will not do lazily to advance a case for this development on the basis, "We need more housing, so why not have it here?" All development should be eco-friendly and should occur where it is right and needed, not just because a 5,000-acre plot is available. Just because there is a private flying club operating from an airstrip near Stoughton, it does not make this a brownfield site. Clearly, the Government will be attracted by convenience—think how much easier it is to deal with only one landowner as opposed to several. In this case, the Co-op owns 99 per cent. of the development site, with English Partnerships, an arm of Government, owning just a few hundred acres, but it is a willing partner.
	I am not suggesting that there is an improper relationship between the Co-op and the Labour party, but it is undeniable that the links between the Government party and the Co-op, generally, are old and deep. The Secretary of State, the Minister for Housing, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hartlepool, all represent northern constituencies in regions where the Co-op has been a strong presence. They will be comfortable with each other, and although there is, I repeat, no suggestion of impropriety, there may be a natural sense of familiarity between an organisation that has its headquarters in Manchester and northern Members of Parliament. No matter how unfair or inaccurate that may be, it has created a perception of bias among the residents of Harborough district, whose enjoyment of their own properties and way of life will be irreversibly and undeniably damaged by this proposal. They also represent areas entirely different from Harborough. Employment levels in their areas are not as good as those in my area or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, average incomes are not as high as in my area, and owner-occupation and the availability of good quality housing may not be as prevalent as in Harborough or in Rutland and Melton. I can therefore understand the surprised reaction of the former Minister for Housing, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when I suggested to her in DCLG questions before Christmas that this massive development was not wanted or needed in Harborough.
	What are the most obvious consequences of letting this proposal go forward? The lack of existing transport infrastructure and the limited amount of strategic thinking about new roads in the Co-op's briefings is an area of particular concern to me and to the county's planners. The massive congestion that would result from linking the A47 to the A6 without further improvements would bring the whole area to a standstill at peak times. These problems would not happen overnight, but over a period while more and more homes are completed, with a slow creep towards gridlock as millions of tonnes of concrete and other building materials were brought on-site. Leicestershire county and Leicester city councils are looking for someone to fund a southern bypass from the A6 to the Ml, a route that is to the south and to the west of the Co-op site and which will become imperative if this new town arrives, but the Co-op has shown no enthusiasm to accept the implications of its development beyond the limits of its own land. Furthermore, it would face negotiating with multiple landowners, and construction would be expensive and take some time. Other potential eco-town sites are alongside motorways and astride train lines. The Stoughton estate is far away from either, and the concept of reopening a station near Great Glen is most unlikely to be seen as a priority by Network Rail or East Midlands Trains when they are trying to construct East Midlands Airport Parkway station in Nottinghamshire, which has so far taken some 20 years to get close to reality.
	The Co-op's own sustainability report, published in April 2007 in preparation for its SUE bid, admits:
	"There is no existing public transport infrastructure serving the majority of the SUE"—
	or, for that matter, an eco-town. The Co-op is relying on people living and working locally, and therefore walking, cycling or using the limited public transport, which is expected to be beefed up as numbers grow. That is frankly fanciful unless the new town is going to be a gated community with restrictions on the residents preventing them from travelling outside its perimeter. Despite Co-op hopes on the subject, a large percentage of the inhabitants of the new town would be commuters to London. That amount of additional commuters trying to get on to the A6 at peak times would mean that Kibworth will need a dual carriageway bypass, the road from Kibworth to Market Harborough will need upgrading to dual carriageway, and the Market Harborough bypass will need dualling. How much of that will be funded by the Co-op development?
	To begin with, as the first new residents arrive, their children will no doubt be educated in Oadby. Oadby's schools are already full and taking children from both the county and city. The pressures on all local authority budgets—already among the lowest funded by Government—will intensify as they try to cope with the additional workload of another major town before it is fully occupied and there is a full council tax income stream. New roads create new journeys. Eco-town residents will want to make their own decisions about where to work, what cars to have and what journeys to make. It is reckless to destroy rural Harborough on the back of a few aspirations on a PowerPoint slide.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State on 20 December. She did not reply, so I tabled a written question. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), replied on 17 January—although the answer did not arrive until 22 January. He said that the eco-town programme would be subject to the statutory planning process,
	"for example through a review of the regional spatial strategy. As a consequence the local community and planning authorities will have the ability to engage with the process."
	Will the Minister specify the statute that allows for the process that his colleague wrote about and explain what the expression "to engage with the process" means in plain English? What is the legal status of that phrase?
	On Second Reading of the Planning Bill, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), the Secretary of State said:
	"Matters such as eco-towns and large housing developments will continue to be decided by local authorities under the town and country planning system and by reference to the local development plans that have been selected."—[ Official Report, 10 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 27.]
	There is room for a good deal of confusion about what the Government collectively intend and the planning process that governs eco-town developments. To allow planning authorities such as Harborough district council to be merely consultees as opposed to decision makers is to abuse local democracy and to divert ownership of the decision from my constituents to Ministers.
	This urban development, if allowed to go through, would utterly destroy a much valued green lung south-east of the city of Leicester to the commercial advantage of the Co-op but for no obvious local or county-wide public benefit. In reality, there will be nothing eco-friendly about that vast new urban settlement, albeit that I can see it has enormous financial advantages for the Co-op and English Partnerships at a time when farming incomes are low and wholesale development offers better rewards.
	The enormous development would create a town of more than 40,000 inhabitants on open farm land that would dwarf the neighbouring villages and even the nearest urban community of any size, Oadby. It will also gravely damage Leicester's plans for its regeneration. It will create an urban wedge that will break down the local rural environment and community in south-east Leicestershire and will allow the swamping of an area of considerable beauty with thousands of houses, cars and lorries and all the permanent infrastructure that would be needed to support such a large town.
	The Co-op claims that the development will create 12,000 or so new jobs. As I have said before, my constituency's unemployment rate is 1 per cent. Any new jobs would require people to be imported to do them. Strange as it may seem to MPs from less economically vibrant parts of the country, we do not need thousands of new jobs to provide work for jobless people in Harborough or Oadby and Wigston. It is, furthermore, unreal to think that the incoming occupants of the 15,000 new homes would all work in the alleged eco-factories that the Co-op claims will provide the jobs. Thousands of people will necessarily commute by car to work elsewhere within the region and, given that the Co-op wants to build a parkway station at Great Glen on the Sheffield main line that goes from St. Pancras to Leicester, it is likely that many hundreds of residents will commute to jobs in London.
	We do not need the type of forced or artificial economic regeneration that the proposal would mean. If one wants to create 12,000 more jobs in an area with virtually full employment, one has to import the jobs and import the housing to accommodate the employees and their families. We are beginning to see what only 800 new houses have done to Kibworth, a village on the A6 barely five miles from the proposed development site, in terms of disturbance and placing strains on our local services and infrastructure. We can only imagine what 15,000 new houses will do not only to Great Glen and its neighbouring villages but to inner and outer Leicester, to Oadby and to rural Harborough, too.
	I urge the Government to distinguish between the immediate or short-term financial interests of the Co-op, and the environmental, economic, social and other long-term interests of the people of Harborough district and Oadby and Wigston. The Government's attitude towards so-called eco-towns should not be allowed to be affected by a misunderstanding of the facts on the ground or public relations material put out by the developers. If the development goes ahead without local input or consent it will arouse untold anger and revulsion. If we get it wrong we get it wrong for ever.

Iain Wright: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I also appreciate the attendance of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan).
	I am very much aware of the concerns expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. He will know that planning rules mean that I am restricted in what I can say, but I am sure he will agree that eco-towns are a new and radical approach to designing and creating new places to live. Such schemes offer a tremendous opportunity to revolutionise the way that we plan and deliver towns, and to change radically the way that people travel, work and live. They will be exemplar communities, and other towns and developments will be able to draw lessons from them.
	The pressures on housing affordability are felt nationwide, including in the constituency of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All regions are experiencing major increases in the number of households. We are inviting local authorities to come forward with growth point proposals, as well as encouraging expressions of interest for eco-towns from the public and private sectors.
	By 2016, the Government want 240,000 new homes to be built every year to keep up with demand. Our desire is that 3 million new homes will be built by 2020. We need more homes in all regions of the country, but we also need greener homes. The new homes must be sustainable in every sense of the word, and they must minimise damage to the environment. That is why we have set a target that is the most ambitious in the developed world—that, by 2016, all new homes will be zero-carbon.
	Eco-towns are a highly sustainable way of meeting some of that demand. We expect that there will be up to five eco-towns by 2016, and 10 by 2020. The size range for each town is between 5,000 and 20,000 inhabitants.

Alan Duncan: It would seem from what the Minister is saying that the eco-towns project is a way of developing a lot of homes fast by simply bringing the word "eco" to the fore. Will he guarantee that no fast-track planning system will be used and that everything will be submitted to the usual planning application system after being referred to the usual planning authority? Or is it his intention to invoke some of the schemes for new towns that have lain dormant since the 1960s, or to incorporate old powers into new legislation so as to accelerate developments of the type that he has described?

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I can confirm that the eco-town proposals will be subject to the statutory planning framework. They will not be outside that framework, and there will be no fast-track proposals. I shall expand on that important point later in my remarks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned new towns, and I shall also deal with that subject in a moment.
	The eco-town as a whole must be capable of reaching zero-carbon standards, and must demonstrate a strength in one area of sustainability. That could be technological, such as the treatment of waste water or the supply of energy, or it could be through an innovative means of encouraging low-carbon living.
	Locations are also important, as well as innovation on site, and that is why, across government, we are looking at proposals to assess whether there are issues of potential flood risk or of scarcity of natural resources. We are also considering the effects that an eco-town might have on the natural environment, on the green spaces that we all have the right to enjoy, and on the protected landscapes or the species that inhabit them. We will look for innovative proposals that enhance our biodiversity and improve the natural environment by integrating green spaces into the new towns.
	The Government have made it clear that they want to make use of brownfield land where there are good opportunities to do so, and a number of schemes using brownfield sites have been put forward. What is more important than anything, however, is that towns are built in sustainable locations that relate well to existing towns and villages.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned transport, and I agree that strong transport links are essential to the new eco-towns. The new towns must demonstrate clearly how they will encourage a reduction in reliance on the car and a shift towards other, more sustainable transport options. We are looking for high-quality offers on accessible public transport, and want cycling and walking to be promoted. We will expect transport plans to be drawn up for each scheme which will outline how such objectives can be achieved—both in the eco-town itself, and in its links with surrounding towns and villages.
	We are looking across government at the potential impacts on the road and rail network of the proposals that we have received, and we are assessing how they will deliver on plans to link to other centres and to employment in the most sustainable way.
	Even though he does not agree with the proposal in his area, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that there had been enormous interest in the eco-towns idea. More than 50 bids have been received, many of them with excellent proposals for new developments. We expect to publish the proposals for eco-towns in February, once we have completed an initial assessment of the applications received, which will be subject to public consultation prior to final decisions on location.
	In the time left to me, I want to stress the following point: while the initial assessment is under way, I cannot comment on any specific scheme. However, I can make some comments about the eco-towns process that will apply in all cases. I must stress that there will be considerable opportunity for consultation on the proposals, including with local authorities and the public, before the process is completed.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know that he is short of time. Would it not be better to adopt the default position that eco-towns should go where people want them, and where local authorities are asking for them, rather than the other way round?

Iain Wright: I shall come on to that by talking about the role of the planning system, because it is crucial. As I have just said, the public will have a full say in the eco-town proposals. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that everything had been done behind closed doors, in smoke-filled rooms. I would say that that is a myth. I want to make it clear that there is no truth in the claim that we are deciding the locations of the 10 eco-towns behind closed doors, without reference to the views of the public or the local authorities where expressions of interest have been put forward.
	It may help if I explain in some detail the process that is going on at the moment. As I said earlier, an initial assessment of the sites for eco-towns is being carried out by the relevant Departments.

Alan Duncan: Will the Minister give way on one tiny point?

Iain Wright: I have an awful lot to cover, including important points about the planning framework, and I have only got two minutes, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way.
	An initial assessment is taking place with Departments and their agencies on the issues of transport and the environment. The issues to consider include accessibility of public transport, impacts on the road network, constraints in terms of landscape, special protection and flood risk. Those are the sort of sustainability issues that need to be considered in taking forward any large development.
	In this early stage, the Government are also taking soundings from regional partners in the Assemblies and development agencies.

Alan Duncan: Can the Minister guarantee to the House that any planning decisions will not override existing spatial and development plans?

Iain Wright: Yes, I can. That is an important point.
	In addition to the Departments, Natural England and the Environment Agency will have an input into the scheme, but that is not the end of the story. This is an initial assessment of the potential of all the bids that have come forward; its purpose is to exclude sites where there are too many showstoppers to allow development to take place. Immediately following that process, we will publish a shorter list than the original 50—probably about 10—for public consultation, and we will take every opportunity to engage with local authorities and the public during this time to ensure that their views are heard.
	Following that period of public consultation, we will make final decisions on the 10 areas that have the most potential to become the eco-towns of the future. I would like to say a little about the planning system because it is the aspect that is causing the hon. and learned Gentleman and others, such as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, the most concern. I confirm what my right hon. Friend—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.